| |||||||||||||
Freedoms granted by the GPLvXFreedoms granted by the GPLvXPosted Oct 18, 2006 18:53 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205)In reply to: Freedoms granted by the GPLvX by masuel Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
You're mistaken, the FSF position hasn't changed in the least.
If the manufacturer can update the device, the customer must be able to as well.
If the manufacturer cannot update the device (as in the microwave) that's not the same situation.
What's changed is not the FSF position, what's changed is that more devices are being made which the manufacturers want to pretend are embedded, unchangeable devices, but really aren't. Tivo is, as usual, a great example. They can and do change the code on those things regularly, for their own purposes. They aren't willing to allow the actual owners of the devices, their customers, to do the same. That's where they're breaking the fundamental intention and spirit of the GPL, and that's why the GPLv3 is needed and is clearly in the same spirit.
(Log in to post comments)
Freedoms granted by the GPLvX Posted Oct 19, 2006 2:33 UTC (Thu) by masuel (guest, #28661) [Link] The FSF intention is clear.
But the users of the GPLv2 do not all have the same intention. It is a valid point of view that the licence should enforce the developer <-> developer relationship, not the manufacture <-> customer one.
The manufactures have been making devices for many years, from there point of view, as developers, this is a change.
It may well be argued that this was selective blindness, the aim of the FSF is about the customers freedom, so the licence should be read from that point of view.
However enforcing this explicitly is a significant change.*
Also the draft currently goes further and tries to control the behaver of the device after the gpl portion of it is changed. Not just parts covered by the licence. Is this morally and legally OK?
All in all its worth a bit of fuss anyway, don't you think?
*)by some readings the current LGPL already has this requirement...
ps I think the definition of embedded products (disallowing updates) is very, urm, odd? Apart from a few rom based products in my experience everything can be updated one way or the other.
Freedoms granted by the GPLvX Posted Oct 19, 2006 4:03 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] But the users of the GPLv2 do not all have the same intention. I don't think that's ever been in dispute. Nonetheless, the FSF wrote the license, their intention and the spirit of the license was always clear, and the version 3 draft language clearly follows that intent and spirit, as it should. Those who don't like that remain free to use a different license. It may well be argued that this was selective blindness, the aim of the FSF is about the customers freedom, so the licence should be read from that point of view. I'm sorry, what is 'this?' Tivoisation is a relatively new phenomenon, and the FSF certainly haven't turned a blind eye to it for even a moment - they've been vocally opposed to it since it first became an issue. Also the draft currently goes further and tries to control the behaver of the device after the gpl portion of it is changed. Not just parts covered by the licence. Could you quote the language you're referring to? Because your description of it rings no bells. ps I think the definition of embedded products (disallowing updates) is very, urm, odd? Apart from a few rom based products in my experience everything can be updated one way or the other. I don't think it's odd at all. I've never heard of anyone updating the software in their microwave, for instance. All that's changed is that more and more general purpose devices are being sold in locked-down configurations where they pretend to be unmodifiable to their owner, but someone else still gets to change them at will, and often to the owners detriment. And I don't think that's something that should be encouraged in any way. Allowing the use of GPL software in such situations would certainly count as encouragement.
Freedoms granted by the GPLvX Posted Oct 19, 2006 6:58 UTC (Thu) by masuel (guest, #28661) [Link] >>It may well be argued that this was selective blindness, the aim of the>>FSF is about the customers freedom, so the licence should be read from >>that point of view.
>I'm sorry, what is 'this?' Tivoisation is a relatively new phenomenon,
I was referring to the other developers of GPLv2 code.
>>Also the draft currently goes further and tries to control the behaver
>Could you quote the language you're referring to?
from Section "1. Source Code"
"The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization
Now granted it all depends on what you consider "work" to be in the
I *don't* really think the big picture (DRM bad, User Control Good) is
Also sticking to my embedded point, as a general rule every device that
Freedoms granted by the GPLvX Posted Oct 19, 2006 17:38 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I was referring to the other developers of GPLv2 code. Then I don't see what point you were making earlier, at all. What, they were supposed to forbid folks like Linus from using the GPL? How? Why? You're just not making any sense to me. from Section "1. Source Code"[...] Sorry, still not following your argument here. After some pondering, I *think* the key may have been in an earlier post though. Not just parts covered by the licence. The license covers the terms under which permission to take actions otherwise forbidden by copyright law are forbidden. I think you're looking at it as "the license covers software, not hardware, but then it's trying to dictate something hardware related." But this is irrellevant. The license extends permission to do things otherwise forbidden by law, as long as the conditions of the license are met. Those conditions could be just about anything. In the case of the GPL, the idea is that if you want a license, you have to pass on all rights you received to those downstream of you. In a particular case that might limit your choices on hardware... so what? It's legally permissable and ethically required. Also sticking to my embedded point, as a general rule every device that is connected to any kind of network is up-datable. They'd better be, if they're directly connected. Which is exactly why you shouldn't have bricks directly connecting to public networks. These updates are normally validated in some way and its not these devices that are changing... There's no problem whatsoever with validating them, as long as the owner of the device has a way to control that validation process. The devices do change - every update changes them. They're general purpose computers outfitted with specialised software - not bricks. Ever play rogue on a Cisco router?
Freedoms granted by the GPLvX Posted Oct 20, 2006 1:10 UTC (Fri) by masuel (guest, #28661) [Link] > What, they were supposed to forbid folks like Linus from using the GPL?> How? Why? You're just not making any sense to me.
Some developers use the GPLv2 to ensure that other developers using there
The FSF uses the GPLvX to ensure the users freedom, ie that the user can
The changes from v2 -> v3 draft 2 make the distinction much clearer (or
Hope that helps a bit.
> In the case of the GPL, the idea is that if you want a license, you
This is a good couple of sentences :)
The new bit is the limit on the overall "system/hardware"... it wasn't
Hence the discussion and quesion about the licence being "in the same
> Ever play rogue on a Cisco router?
... no sorry ... but I have taken features written for a platform I have
The developers clearly benefit from the availability of the code without
The FSF point of view that is not enough, some people say it is.
I hope you recognise it is worthy of debate even if your point of view is
ps I actually haven't made up my mind yet...
Freedoms granted by the GPLvX Posted Oct 20, 2006 3:20 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Hope that helps a bit. I don't disagree at all with what you're saying, but I don't see what it has to do with the earlier allegation of 'selective blindness' however. I suspect that those, Linus for instance, that have a real problem with the spirit of the GPL had ample warning and opportunity to omit the 'or later versions' clause, which was explicitly left out of the license itself to permit that, in fact. I hope you recognise it is worthy of debate even if your point of view is that "enforcing code sharing" alone is naive/wrong. I can see a worthy debate on some issues here, but not on whether or not v3 is in the same spirit. That question seems absolutely beyond question.
Freedoms granted by the GPLvX Posted Oct 20, 2006 6:41 UTC (Fri) by masuel (guest, #28661) [Link] > ... I don't see what it has to do with the earlier allegation> of 'selective blindness'.
sorry for the confusion
As we have agreed the FSF view the GPL is about users freedom and some
If the second party are not aware of the first parties intentions or
It could, therefor, I feel be argued that "in spirit" is only true of the
By changing the licence, any developers just meant "tit-for-tat sharing"
Does this make sense?
(I know the bsd lot must be use to the feeling but its a new one to GPL
|
|||||||||||||