Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 20:02 UTC (Fri) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by alonso
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

> The freedom argument is pointless, why GPLv2 is better than BSD? Because GPLv2 limit freedom of developer, they have to release modification of the code.

Very well said. I suspect that given the complexity of the current software a source that you can not modify becomes just another form of binary format. So in DRM world GPLv2 applied to a complex software becomes just another form of business-friendly BSD license.

On the other hand I wish FSF would not even mention too-political DRM in GPLv3 and just state instead that for a reasonable amount of money a user can get a box to run code with his modifications.

So if a kernel flash image requires signed code, the user should be able to sign it somehow even if that would require small fee. If the kernel resides in ROM, then the user should be able to get a chip with his modifications even if that requires to pay for another chip.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 20:46 UTC (Fri) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link] (2 responses)

They only mentioned DRM in the first discussion draft. The second draft changed this to "No
Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures".

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 21:01 UTC (Fri) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] (1 responses)

Thanks, I missed that. It is much better term to use. Still I do not think it covers ROM chips with compiled GPL-ed code, while explicitly says about encryption keys. For example, it prevents a company from offering an option to sign the code through, for example, usb-connected box without revealing the private keys.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 15:40 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

You're wrong, the GPLv3 draft allows vendors to sign code (without revealing the signing keys) just fine.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 9:59 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link]

This is a misconception. GPLv2 or v3 only limits the freedom of the distributor. The don't limit the freedom of the developer unless the developers want to become a distributor. The distinction is the most important point in understanding GPLv2 or v3. It seems to me that kernel developers are too busy to really understand this whole issue. I don't know why they are taking a stand anyway.