Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 23, 2006 0:25 UTC (Sat) by Felix_the_Mac
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
"A DRM-encumbered device clearly is not "sharing" the code in any meaningful way. None at all."
From the point of view of the software developers the code is shared as normal. The device manufacturer takes the GPL code, modifies it, makes the modifications available to everybody and then incorporates it in the device.
It is only from the end users point of view that the company appears to be breaching the philosophy of the GPL since although the user has the source code and can use it in various ways (i.e. build their own device etc.etc.) they cannot reload it into the Tivo (or other hardware) and get it to run.
The GPL3 I believe therefore introduces the concepts of limits on the use of the software which were not present before. In doing this does it not become incompatible with version 2 thereby causing the fragmentation and great difficulties for distributions that the authors of this paper mention?
Personally I would be very happy if the GPL v3 was finalised and adopted by 98% of current GPL 2 projects. But if that is not going to happen and the new license causes the difficulties that the authors mention then it is not worth the cost.
In the circumstances I do think that a GPL3 which contained some clarifications and wording adjustments for the sake of internationalising the license would be worthwhile. BUT only if it was fully compatible with GPL 2 and therefore (a) it wouldn't matter if a particular project didn't move to GPL3 and (2) there would be no reason for any project not to move to GPL 2.
to post comments)