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

FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:30 UTC (Wed) by RareCactus (guest, #41198)
In reply to: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com) by cventers
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.