is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2? [LWN.net]

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 5:11 UTC (Thu) by walken (subscriber, #7089)
In reply to: is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2? by mingo
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Hi Ingo,

> So whether the GPLv3 fulfills what the GPLv2 was "supposed to do in the
> FSF's view" is pretty much besides the point - the FSF only wrote the ~600
> lines GPL license, the kernel developers wrote the other 7 million lines of
> code. Thus what matters mostly is the Linux kernel contributors' view on
> this issue.

You are of course right about this - if the kernel developers want to use the GPLv2 license, it is of course their right to do so, and they do not have to justify themselves for that choice.

I also realise that some of the kernel developers seem to have strong feelings against the FSF, and might be disinclined to consider the GPLv3 for that reason. Which is fine too - you can just say you dont want to look at any new FSF license if that's how you feel.

However, the kernel developers *have* been making arguments against GPLv3 and I find these to be quite confusing. So since there has been some arguing, it's only natural that people will try to understand what you mean. In the message you were replying to, khim was arguing (quite convincingly, I think) that the GPLv3 does not do anything beyond what GPLv2 was supposed to do. You say the FSF's opinion of what GPLv2 is supposed to do is irrelevant - fine, but then, what is YOUR opinion of what GPLv2 is supposed to do ?

So far I've heard of the "GPLv3 would prevent tivo from using linux" issue. Linus has been arguing (actually, you did too: http://lwn.net/Articles/200628/) that it's a USE restriction and that GPLv2 did not have those - but that's incorrect, the restriction is only about DISTRIBUTION and GPLv2 already had some of this, i.e. microsoft can not "use" the linux TCP stack in their windows OS either. Or technically they'd be free to USE it internally (GPLv2 does not have any usage restrictions), but they could not DISTRIBUTE the result. If you really wanted a license without distribution restrictions, I think you'd just use BSD. So, in YOUR opinion, why are you happy with the distribution restrictions in GPLv2 but not those in GPLv3 ?

You've also been arguing that tivo should be free to lock down their software, so that you get the source but you can't recompile it and run the result on your tivo. You seem to think it's OK since if one wants to be able to run their modified code, they can just buy a general-purpose computer. Would you still feel that way if it somehow became impossible to buy a general-purpose computer with TV inputs and outputs ?

I'm just trying to understand your opinion...

Thanks,

to post comments

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:08 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

"Would you still feel that way if it somehow became impossible to buy a general-purpose computer with TV inputs and outputs ?"

It still wouldn't have anything to do with the software license. It's not about the software, it's about the hardware and about laws that control the hardware.

is the GPLv3 "similar in spirit" to the GPLv2?

Posted Oct 5, 2006 15:27 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

I'm a "hardware" developer as job description. I really don't like this "it's about hardware" talk people who apparently understand absolutely nothing about hardware except that it comes in boxes talk that way. "Hardware" today is typically 95% software, one or several processors, memories, and some custom stuff which really is hardware in the original sense (processors often are half-software as well, e.g. microcode). All sane hardware developer move the complex stuff to software, and an appliance like the TiVo definitely has a lot of complex stuff in software. And today, even most digital "hardware" really is created by compiling Verilog or VHDL descriptions (which is perfect software, if you look at it) into a form that can be made as gates.

Therefore, there can't be such a sharp distinction between "hardware" and "software" as it used to be when hardware still was that brick&mortar stuff (nails, screws, etc.). Just take a simple view: It's software when the copyright applies. When it doesn't, it's hardware. Most what may appear to an outsider as hardware really is software which was transformed into physically tangible stuff. But you wouldn't claim that a CD full of programs is hardware, because it's phyically tangible, would you?

So stop telling us that the TiVo is a "hardware" issue.