"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 6, 2006 15:00 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)
In reply to: "Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ... by cventers
Parent article: Similar in spirit?

  > The contention that this somehow turns into a "right to tweak the
  > hardware" is false.

  Well, let's be careful about what we're talking about here. I agree with
  you and others when you mention that some devices already put software
  into ROM. If the FSF were trying to ensure a right to tweak hardware,
  there would probably be language prohibiting putting GPL code into ROM.

  By contrast, the anti-DRM provisions say "don't use technological means
  to circumvent the license".

Why are you changing the topic and continuing to discuss that new topic without addressing the question I raised?

What i talked about in the post you replied to was the interpretation of the GPLv2 that does not show any "right to tweak".

It was /your/ contention in the original post that the GPLv2 talks about something that results in the "right to tweak", and that this somehow justifies the GPLv3's attempts to control hardware. It was /you/ who quoted the GPLv2's opening section to underscore it.

I repeat: how could Linus have considered this new-found, retroactive, absurd and illogical interpretation of the GPLv2 in 1991? How could i have considered it when i started contributing to Linux in 1995?

(Log in to post comments)

Staying on track

Posted Oct 6, 2006 15:17 UTC (Fri) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Ingo,

I regret to see that you have not extended me the same favor of replying
to the argument in full. And indeed, that seems to be the underlying
reason for your misrepresentation of what it is that I have said.

There is a very distinct difference between the right to tweak hardware
and the right to tweak software. The GPL is in no way concerned with the
right to tweak hardware or we would probably see rules about not putting
GPL code into ROM.

The operative difference -- the very reason for an anti-DRM provision in
GPLv3, is to prevent manufacturers from artificially and deliberately
removing the right to tweak the _software_ - that is, from removing
Freedom #1.

I think Linus, and now you, are doing people a disservice when drawing a
sharp line between hardware and software, and then claiming that what the
software is contained in is somehow irrelevant to the discussion. Linus
is particularly good at debate and has done a good job of making it seem
obnoxious that the GPL has anything to say that might be construed as
reaching beyond this sharp line.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the hardware and software is
inter-related. Referring to a 'right to tweak the hardware' as you have
is a red herring and a misnomer. It misses the point entirely, and it
distracts from discussion of the real issue, which is the right to tweak
the software - that pesky Freedom #1 manufacturers now seem content to
toss away.

Why don't you respond to the real issue instead of covering it in this
cloak? Why don't you respond to the rest of my points and extend me the
same favor I have extended you? And further, why don't you tell the good
people here why you have not brought your valid concerns about GPLv3 to
the FSF's open drafting process, even after they have invited you and
your colleagues to participate time and time again?