Licence text and fabs
Posted Oct 3, 2006 14:33 UTC (Tue) by mingo
In reply to: Licence text and fabs
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
And, by the way, your argument that it is "immoral" could equally well be applied (and has been applied, usually by BSD advocates) to GPLv3this is the usual argument against "viral" clauses. The usual retort is that it is simply quid pro quo: if you want to distribute my code as a part of your software (or hardware), you need to satisfy my conditions.
You are materially misrepresenting the "Quid Pro Quo" that existed in the GPLv2, and you have inserted a condition (see the word in bold above) that was never there.
Using our license to affect works independent of our work (such as hardware) was never part of the Quid Pro Quo deal. If my software is distributed with works that are independent of my software, i have no moral right to limit that distribution. (Yes, we have the legal power to do so, but there are a lot of things that are legally allowed but still immoral.)
Look at the "merge aggregation" language in the GPLv2.
This whole attempt to control other works is hidden in Section 1 of the second draft of the GPLv3, by the inclusion of "keys" into the Source Code definition:
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.
This definition brings keys, which are otherwise part of another work (the hardware) into the scope of our "source code", and hence forces their release.
What will we put into the definition of "Source Code" in GPLv4? Perhaps "all design documents of the hardware and 10 free samples of the hardware, so that the documentation can be used in a meaningful way to modify the software in its principal context of use"?
Please answer me a simple question: what moral rights do we have to control works independent of ours, and where does the GPLv2 do the same thing, if your argument is that it already did that? The Tivo hardware is not a modification and not derived from any GPL-ed code.
In simple terms: the GPLv3 goes from the previous "Quid Pro Quo" to "eye for eye", and it is utilizing tools that limit fundamental freedoms (such as unlimited end-use and the independence of works independent from our works) that the GPLv2 explicitly granted in an unlimited way.
Do you now understand why the GPLv3 is not similar in spirit to the GPLv2?
to post comments)