GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3

chessweb writes "Here is a rather enlightening article by Richard Stallman on the reasons for moving to GPLv3 that puts the previous TiVo post into the right context." From the article: "One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called 'appliances') contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software... The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them."

Comments

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft

[nukem996]

First off you should have reviewed the license before you started working with it. Secondly while yes had to release any kernel modifications this can be easily gotten around similarly to the way NVIDIA and ATI does it by writting an open source wrapper which communicates with there binary blobs. Third you could have bought Intel's compiler which would have let you kept your source closed, also I'm not 100% sure that if you compile under gcc you have to keep it open Quake 4 and numerous other apps are compiled under gcc and are kept closed. Finally if you really wanted an open source OS that you could steal code from look at BSD. Now was it that your company couldn't release the code under the GPL. If you was an in house thing then you weren't making money on it. You paid nothing to use GNU/Linux in the first place so why couldn't you give something back in the form of the modifications you made? The price you pay to use GNU/Linux is if you modify it you have to give your modified code to everyone.

Re:Why we stayed clear of the GPL

[nagora]

We discussed it and the company president was worried something like the GPL 3 could be a problem in the future.

So, the company president was worried that a license you weren't going to use might be a problem? How strange.

I've been of the opinion that if you truely believe in open and free software, BSD-style is the way to go.

I certainly think that your post shows the issue at the hear of BSD Vs GPL: if you are a software producer who wants to benefit from others' work without paying anything back at all to anyone anywhere for that work, then the BSD is certainly the best option. If you are a programmer who wants there to be a continuing flow of useful code to base your work on and are happy to help provide that flow back to everyone else, then the GPL is the answer.

GPL maybe open, but it has strings attached and often is only free as in beer.

Another way of looking at it is that the BSDL has invisible strings attached that ensure that you will never be paid, not even in the abstract sense of knowing that you might be aided down the line some day by someone returning the favour. That's a pretty big price to pay; too big for me.

TWW

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft

[hackstraw]

For example, using gcc to compile proprietary software is allowed.

All of this allowed, not allowed GPL crap simply does not make GPL stuff seem that free anymore.

I've always prefered the BSD license system personally. Is GPLed software really free?