"Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...
Posted Oct 5, 2006 21:33 UTC (Thu) by cventers
In reply to: "Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...
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
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
> 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
to post comments)