Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Posted Jan 28, 2007 0:57 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons
In reply to: Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
They haven't say such a thing, they said that GPL should not try to
get into areas that aren't properly a code license's. Also, GPLv2
gives certain specific rights, what is wrong with with wanting to give
just that ones? Sure, GPLv2 would gain a lot by cleaning up the
language, and making it (more) compatible with non-US laws.
The GPL has always applied to distributors, so why should it not be
adjusted to whatever new distribution methods such as Tivos that have
developed in a decade and a half (incredibly long in this biz) since
v2? To limit rights as in v2, are you not aware of the exceptions language
in v3 that allows certain restrictions to be imposed?
Besides, the 4 freedoms (and GPLv2) haven't ever talked about "If you
get a device running free code, you are entitled to run anything else
you want on it". I can certainly see uses for open source that require
(for complying with regulations, for safety, etc) running only
certified programs. Sure, the most talked about case is restricting
users access to digital content, but nothing GPLvX could do will make
any difference for or against that, but it will hurt other uses badly.
Just a trivial google search on the terms "gplv3", "medical", "devices"
gives as the top hit:
which is a recent summary of thought which has existed for some time
now and which throws your concern here into doubt.
The bottom line is that the GPL has always aimed to uphold the four
freedoms, and with this protection now diminished from loopholes, v3
is needed to fix them.
to post comments)