"Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ... [LWN.net]

"Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...

Posted Oct 5, 2006 21:33 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to: "Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ... by sepreece
Parent article: Similar in spirit?

> Yes, but it's about the right to tweak the software within a particular
> piece of hardware, so it clearly extends beyond just the software.

I don't see how this is true at all. It's merely making sure that you can
modify the covered work itself. And actually, it doesn't even go that
far, as I've pointed out - if the device doesn't allow the code to be
changed because it's in ROM or something, that's okay. What is claimed by
the license is that the definition of source code extends to any keys
required to run the modified source. In other words, it really only
covers situations where the manufacturer has intentionally designed a
feature such that modified source won't run unless they were the ones to
modify it.

That says nothing about what they're allowed to do with the hardware.
That doesn't even say you are supposed to be able to tweak the hardware.
That just says you can't put a key-lock on the GPL-covered work if you
don't share the key.

> Depending on the specific mechanism used to implement trust in a
> device, "keys and authorization codes" might also be required to allow
> changing values stored in special-purpose areas in the hardware, which
> also sounds like "tweaking the hardware."

Can you give an example? I can take some guesses but I'd rather discuss
any actual examples you might have than making a guess about what you are
saying and disagree with that.

> Well, that's the crux of the issue between the sub-communities. We see
> freedom #1 as saying, on its face, "you are free to run this software
> on any device that will run it"; you see freedom #1 as saying, on its
> face, "you are free to run this software on this particular device".
> So, to us, Tivo is respecting freedom #1 and to you it isn't.

Pardon? Freedom #0 is the freedom to run it as you wish. Freedom #1 is
the freedom to modify it as you wish. If the manufacturer slaps a lock on
the software to prevent you from modifying it, how could the manufacturer
possibly be construed as upholding the freedom that says you are free to
modify?

> Note that the great mass of people have repeatedly shown themselve to
> be eager to trade rights that they have no desire to exercise for
> increased security. The vast majority of the people I know, aside from
> those in software jobs, would be completely happy to have hardware that
> ran only software signed by some trusted authority, if in return they
> didn't have to worry about viruses and other attacks.

Granted, but I'm not sure if you're invoking this to imply anything in
particular. In this case, we're talking specifically about developers of
free software. We don't want our freedoms to be taken away from us with
our own hard work, so when we share our hard work freely we say "don't
take the freedom this work carries away from those you convey it to."

I can understand mere disagreement over this point but when you really
look at the crux of what the clause is saying, in the scope of what
activity the license is designed to protect, I can't believe anyone (not
necessarily you - I'm making a general comment now) is so fanatically
opposed to it.

> That is, in requiring that "if it's a DVD player, a modified version
> must still play the same disks", it seems to putting requirements on
> the whole body of software in the device, proprietary and
> non-proprietary, not just on the GPLed components. [It is also possible
> to read the section narrowly, in which case you would have to assume it
> meant that the DVD player in the example was entirely GPLed software.]

The example is expanding on the idea of including keys necessary to
install or use the covered work. But maybe you're right - I'm no
attorney. Can I suggest that you either add your comments using the
interface at http://gplv3.fsf.org/ or approach the FSF through a more
official channel?

(Log in to post comments)

"Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...

Posted Oct 5, 2006 23:34 UTC (Thu) by jdivine (guest, #18042) [Link]

> Pardon? Freedom #0 is the freedom to run it as you wish. Freedom #1 is
> the freedom to modify it as you wish. If the manufacturer slaps a lock on
> the software to prevent you from modifying it, how could the manufacturer
> possibly be construed as upholding the freedom that says you are free to
> modify?

They aren't preventing you from _modifying_ the software. You can modify the software all you want. They are preventing you from _running_ the modified software on the particular piece of hardware they manufactured. You can adapt the code, use it in other programs and on other devices, do whatever you want with it.

You may want to run modified code on the device you bought from them (which is totally reasonable) but your freedom to modify the code has not been abridged.

"Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...

Posted Oct 6, 2006 1:48 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I think we've gone around the particular tree enough times, so I'm not going to do a detailed response. Just a couple of quick answers to specific points:

I apologize for forgetting that the FSF numbers the freedoms from 0. I meant 0.

The point about the willingness of people to trade freedom for security was in response to your "The virus writer example goes too far. My reason is an analogy on free society - it would be like the police asking for us to give up our rights so that we don't get stabbed by burglars or something." The point is just that while it may be too far for you, many people would disagree.

I simply disagree with you about priorities. I think there are devices where trust is more important the user's ability to modify the software in the device, and I would not have any problem at all with my software being used in such devices. Obviously, YMMV.

And, finally, yes, I have been commenting on the GPLv3 drafts.