Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 22:27 UTC (Sat) by jake (editor, #205)
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

While I support the kernel developers (or the subset that agree with this position paper) right to decide whatever they wish about GPLv3, I am a bit surprised that they would be so against the 'anti-DRM' provisions.

If I write a piece of software and freely share it with the world (subject to the GPL) and some company incorporates it into their device, I would *require* the ability to modify that software and run it on that device. Companies go out of business and/or lose interest in older products frequently. If there is a critical security issue (for instance) with software that I wrote on a device and I can't fix that for myself (or my friends or family who might have purchased that device), it would be totally unacceptable.

I am essentially charging anyone who wants to use the software that I wrote by requiring them to publish any modifications that they make and to allow me (and by extension others) to modify it and run it on that device. If they don't wish to do that, they can choose to use some other software, write it themselves or pay me to re-license it so they can make it unmodifiable.

jake

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 9:04 UTC (Sun) by jarto (guest, #3268) [Link] (3 responses)

If a company builds a locked down device with GPL software, they still have to publish their modifications to the source code. If the device is successful, any competitor of theirs can also build their own and market it: "We have the same megagadget, it's cheaper, it honors your freedom and it's a lot better".

Look at Nokia 770. It's Linux based, I can hack it easily, I get lots of free features later by upgrading it and I can continue to use it for years to come. And Nokia wants us to contribute. Not locking down gadgets is a feature that benefits hardware companies.

As it's a smart thing for hardware companies to produce open devices, there's no point to force them to do it.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 9:55 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

As it's a smart thing for hardware companies to produce open devices, there's no point to force them to do it.

Except that big media companies can conceivably buy a law that forces all computers to be locked down and enforce DRM. It has happened before; remember Macrovision and VCR anticopy provisions in the DMCA. With this provision in place this law would effectively outlaw all GPLv3 code, and would therefore have little hope of succeeding.

Also, don't expect that all businesses follow the most rational path, even if it is in their benefit. Remember what happened with Unix? Each company wanted to have its proprietary advantage, so they collectively weakened their market. BSD versions suffered the same fate. When Linux came along, forcing companies to do the smart thing and share their modifications, it swept the competition away.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 14:53 UTC (Sun) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> As it's a smart thing for hardware companies to produce open devices, there's no point to force them to do it.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything ... they are free to write their own software and license it however they like ... I don't think it's reasonable for them to take my software and lock it away from me ... free software without that restriction just gives them all the benefits with none of responsibilities (one can't even check that the modifications they publish correspond to the code they have embedded) ...

while those of us who are 'in the know' can (presumably) make smart decisions not to purchase locked down gadgets, the vast majority of folks cannot ... free software is for their benefit as well ...

jake

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 11:48 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link]

"As it's a smart thing for hardware companies to produce open devices, there's no point to force them to do it."

Same argument as the one that BSD guys keep giving. But apply the Prisoners Dilemma and the sentence will become.

As it's a dumb thing for hardware companies to produce open devices, nobody produces them.