Licence text and fabs
Posted Oct 2, 2006 20:23 UTC (Mon) by mingo
In reply to: Licence text and fabs
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
It's difficult to respond to your statement that draft 2 of GPLv3 is not similar in spirit to GPLv3 when you don't reference the text to say how.
I sent that feedback to the FSF some time ago. The final reply, after some discussion where i explained my points, was silence. So lets put the discussion out into the open, maybe that improves the quality of communications.
For example, lets take the definition of Source Code from Section 1, gpl-draft-2006-07-27 (gplv3 second draft):
The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or
authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified
versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of
use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the
same range of circumstances.
I understand that this is that drives the anti-Tivo push, but what do encryption keys have to do with source code?
If a hardware maker decides to put a "virtual ROM" on his box and sell the hardware in such a restricted form so that it will only run kernels that match a certain hash (besides putting the hardware into a 10"x10" sealed, translucent plastic cube and painting it purple), what does the hash check in the hardware have to do with any source code?
And if there is any connection, why dont we include "box that can be opened via a standard screwdriver, so that it can be modified without damaging it" into the definition of the source code?
Why dont we include "and all specifications of the hardware have to be provided too, so that the modification of software can be performed without damaging the hardware"?
Why dont we include "dont paint the box purple because that color scares away free software developers trying to modify the box!"?
Why does the GPLv3 redefine source-code in such a way, why does it single out keys from the myriads of existing ways of restricting hardware capabilities, and where will that process stop? But most importantly, why does the GPLv3 get into the business of trying to dictate hardware design? The GPLv2 didnt do that. I hate the MPAA/RIAA's behavior as any other guy on lkml but still i dont get down to their deplorable tactics.
to post comments)