Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 23:32 UTC (Fri) by tglx (subscriber, #31301)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by emk
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

> ... And all each of these devices will be loyal to somebody else, and ultimately beyond my control.

GPLv2 grants you usage when you abide to give the changes to the source code back (in form of source code). There is no distinction of user in the sense of the hardware manufactures who uses it for his product and the end user who uses the device which was made by the manufacturer using the code.

GPLv3 is trying to get influence on the way a hardware manufacturer has to do his business. Is there any substantial given right to do so ?

Where do you draw the line ? Is Intel obligated to hand you out their CPU design, just because the CPUs are able to run your code ?

I don't like DRM as the guy next door, but nobody forces me to buy hardware which I don't like.

Your 50+ little devices are a strawman argument for some kind of ethereal freedom.

My freedom is to decide what I buy and what I hack on and for this I do not need paternalism by RMS.

tglx

to post comments

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 3:00 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (5 responses)

What part of the draft requires CPU designs from Intel?

Such statements are the reason that the gplv3.fsf.org requires people to attached their comments to a specific sentence.

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 15:52 UTC (Sat) by tglx (subscriber, #31301) [Link] (4 responses)

I said:

"Where do you draw the line ? Is Intel obligated to hand you out their CPU design, just because the CPUs are able to run your code ? "

I nowhere said that the GPLv3 draft is requiring this. I was pointing out in which direction this might go, if you are thinking beyond the rim of the TIVOed hardware.

tglx

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 1:59 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, if your scenario was hypothetical, you've nothing to worry about since nobody has suggested going that far in that direction.

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 23:53 UTC (Sun) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624) [Link] (2 responses)

Not yet, anyway...

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 25, 2006 5:45 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (1 responses)

> Not yet, anyway...

If and when the FSF is in a position to go that far (in the draft of the
GPLv9, say) ... then it will have secured not only software freedom but
also design freedom. Onward and upwards!

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 25, 2006 14:55 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

And they'll still be claiming "Oh, these chages are completely in the spirit of GPLv2..", which they'll be able to do, of course, because "in the spirit of" has no legal meaning or clear definition...

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 8:05 UTC (Sat) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] (3 responses)

Nobody forces you to use code which you don't like, either. If you don't like software that's licensed with GPLv3, then don't pretend that you're entitled to a free ride.

Usage of GPLv3 is a decision that's ultimately left to the creator of the software, not the user. The user is left with the decision of which software to use.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:01 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, I think that's what the kernel folks just said - it's their choice and they choose GPLv2...

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 3:16 UTC (Sun) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] (1 responses)

So why are they blaming the FSF when it is the kernel hackers that are making the choice to allow the kernel to be used in non-free ways? It is their choice, it is their responsibility. The FSF hasn't changed their goals they are just responding to new circumstances and doing what they have promised their users since the beginning. I have no dought that the device manufacturers and media companies will take the kernel hackers response as a green light to use more spyware and lock down their devices even more.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 15:02 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

I don't think they're "blaming the FSF" for anything except potentially fragmenting the development community. THey're just saying that GPLv3 draft 2 is not in the same spirit that they licensed their code under and they do not intend to change to use the new version if it contains the indicated additional conditions.

I do agree that the FSF is pursuing its goals as it did from the beginning, and that like every politically-oriented organization, it is interpreting success as a mandate to expand its reach. Many organizations find out that overreaching erodes their support base, eventually to the point that their community splinters and their group becomes marginal.