FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 14:19 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com) by svkelley
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

I see it going one of three ways:

1. People get incredibly paranoid, over-react, and fork important
projects back off into GPLv2-only, leaving a large market of free
software available to be abused by manufacturers, who scoop it up rapidly
and DRM-lock every new device on the market, leaving the hobbyist
embedded developer _nowhere_ to go;

2. The kernel developers stand largely alone in sticking their nose up in
the air, some manufacturers get by with just the kernel, and the hobbyist
is still fucked;

3. Enough GPLv3 software exists that some companies pay for WinCE or
VxWorks in order to avoid the DRM restriction. Then their competition
comes out and builds a better, cheaper hammer on GPLv3 free software -
without the DRM.

By the way, you can replace 'hobbyist' with 'user' in these scenarios.
You don't have to be a programmer to enjoy the GPL's freedom to adapt the
software, just look at Rockbox for a great example.

And I hear that you're not making devices for hobbyist programmers, but
we hobbyist programmers are not making free software for you to abuse.
Would you like to meet at the same table and work out a mutually
beneficial relationship in which you freely use our free software to
build a better hammer, so long as we reserve the right to use it how we
please once we've payed you for it?

(Log in to post comments)

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:30 UTC (Wed) by RareCactus (guest, #41198) [Link]

I don't know which way each particular project will go, but I suspect that most of the important ones will stay GPLv2.
In particular, it is certain that we will have at least a GPLv2-only kernel and libc.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether hobbyists will be able to modify things. That will be determined by what kind of DRM laws are passed, and what kind of hacked hardware consumers are able to get through the black or grey market.

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:39 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

> None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether hobbyists will
> be able to modify things. That will be determined by what kind of DRM
> laws are passed, and what kind of hacked hardware consumers are able to
> get through the black or grey market.

You claim to be a kernel developer in another one of your posts, and I
think this is one place where many kernel developers appear confused.

The anti-Tivoization clause in GPLv3 is a clarification intended to
prohibit manufacturers from implementing technical restrictions
preventing users from modifying the covered software work; something
embodied certainly in the spirit of GPLv2 if not strongly in plain legal
terms. In that sense, it has everything to do with whether hobbyists will
be able to modify things.

In fact, if the ability of hobbyists to modify things were something
kernel people considered important, and they still didn't think GPLv3 was
the right way to go about it, they might be better served by merely
acting on their own opinion rather than trying to stop people that have
other opinions from acting differently.