Freedoms granted by the GPLvX
Posted Oct 19, 2006 4:03 UTC (Thu) by Arker
In reply to: Freedoms granted by the GPLvX
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
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.
to post comments)