The third GPLv3 draft
The third GPLv3 draft
Posted Mar 28, 2007 22:19 UTC (Wed) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242)In reply to: The third GPLv3 draft by bcs
Parent article: The third GPLv3 draft
Whats wrong with just "unless you waive this right"?
No need to single out classes of users.
Posted Mar 29, 2007 7:38 UTC (Thu)
by spitzak (guest, #4593)
[Link]
Posted Mar 30, 2007 21:59 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (4 responses)
Well, who is "you"? There are 3 parties here: 1) the author (copyright holder); 2) the distributor; 3; the user. Distributor is the only one who needs a copyright license. But I assume you mean Distributor is excused from the key-giving condition if User agrees not to have a key.
What's wrong with that is that it defeats Author's purpose in using GPL, which is to encourage Distributor to make his own work freely available and modifiable by anyone. The same reason that under GPL 2, User can't waive his right to have Distributor's source code.
Examples have been given of cases where User doesn't want a key, and you can certainly write GPL so that User doesn't have to have one if he doesn't want it. But there are also cases where User doesn't want the power to have a key, like when Dr Jekyl says, "You must not let me out of this room, even if I beg you." A commenter above described it in more detail, but basically, it's because User gets something from Distributor in return for committing himself not to have a key.
This, by the way, is by no means limited to business users. As a home user, I too might want to sell some of my ability to modify software. I guess FSF decided it's more important for a business to have that freedom than for me.
Posted Mar 31, 2007 14:46 UTC (Sat)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (3 responses)
The problem occurs if ALL recipients of the distribution are required to waive their rights as a condition of receiving it.
As an example, I think it would fine is a manufacturer sold a phone two ways - with full GPL rights, but no associated services (like cellular network access), and with rights waived but service provided. The software is still freely available and the user has the option to buy what she needs.
I agree that GPL rights would be abused if it were possible for a distributor to sell a product ONLY with rights waived.
Posted Mar 31, 2007 17:36 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
Simplifying the example a little: Red Hat offers Linux two ways: $100 with just object code; $10000 with source code on demand. Does GPL allow that? Should it?
Posted Mar 31, 2007 20:29 UTC (Sat)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'm not suggesting this as a way for manufacturers to gouge the consumer or to hide their changes to the code, just as an option that the consumer might prefer. This is on the assumption that in some cases the service provider wants to require a specific software load on the device as a condition of service. I believe that should be their right, whether it's the best technical solution or not...
Posted Mar 31, 2007 23:33 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
If people voluntarily pay $100 for object code and $10,000 for source code, it looks pretty fair to me: the source code is obviously quite valuable, and each user gets what he paid for. The just-users customers would be pretty happy not to be charged the value of the source code.
A GPL author's goal is a lot like that of a legislator passing a product safety or minimum wage law: greater public good at the expense of some individual good deals.
The idea is to eliminate competition (remember that consumers normally compete with other consumers, not with producers). As long as I'm willing to take object code only, that puts economic pressure on you to do the same. But if through the magic of GPL, an author can prevent me from taking object code only, then the distributor has only two choices: give both you and me object and source code or given neither of us anything. In many cases, the former is the more profitable route for the distributor. It's a big win for you, and, the argument goes, it's a pretty small loss for me -- just a slightly more expensive product.
It seems it could be as simple as "installation instructions must be provided to users who request The third GPLv3 draft
them" as a seperate requirement than that the "source code must be provided to users who
request it". Since the installation instructions could depend on the user's serial number,
requesting them could void the warranty as well, and would not provide a leak of this dangerous
information to "users who don't want it".
The third GPLv3 draft
What's wrong with just "unless you waive this right"?
That's oversimplifying. Most users of consumer equipment will never ask for the source code and never try (or want to try) to modify it. The author's intent is in no way thwarted if *those* users waive their right to get the source code.The third GPLv3 draft
The third GPLv3 draft
As an example, I think it would fine if a manufacturer sold a phone two ways - with full GPL rights, but no associated services (like cellular network access), and with rights waived but service provided. The software is still freely available and the user has the option to buy what she needs.
For me to consider it fair, the cost has to be similar (can't charge extra for the right to the source). For the example I posed, I assumed the cost for the phone was the same either way and the with-service option simply added the cost of the service, though presumably you could still have carrier rebates to offset some of the cost of the handset.The third GPLv3 draft
The third GPLv3 draft
For me to consider it fair, the cost has to be similar
I'm not suggesting this as a way for manufacturers to gouge the consumer
or to hide their changes to the code, just as an option that the
consumer might prefer.
In order for GPL authors to get what they want in exchange for their work, they have to make things unfair and penalize some users.