Slashdot Mirror
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."
RTFGPL Myths.
Support for my statement above: GPL on Qikipedia From the link:
Non-GPL'd and non-free software can be developed with GPL'd tools The program must be GPL only if it includes GPL source code or it is linked with a GPL library. For example, using gcc to compile proprietary software is allowed.
Wouldn't it have been better to simply post a link to were you copied this forum post from?
t hreadID=2246&messageID=11919&start=-1
http://news.com.com/5208-1030_3-0.html?forumID=1&
Of course, it would not make it any more correct than it was back then.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=67877&cid= 6220788
t hreadID=2246&messageID=11919&start=-1
8 087
http://news.com.com/5208-1030_3-0.html?forumID=1&
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82711&cid=724
Funny about these little things isn't it. And those are just three places I found this troll. I'm not sure where it originated, but still, just goes to show that trolls aren't original.
I wank in the shower.
Hehe, it's a good troll, but it is old...
t hreshold=3&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18399837o ld=3&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=13343214
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227167&
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159323&thresh
Someone with a 6 digit UID that doesn't know that compiling something with GCC *doesn't* make the binary GPL'ed? Hand in your geek credentials please.
This is the sort of FUD that Microsoft must be loving. Every piece of code ever written by vi or emacs certainly isn't GPL'ed, just like every track that was finished up in Audacity isn't GPL'ed and just like people who use Visual Studio aren't obliged to hand over their source and binaries to MS gratis.
Please also note that you're only forced to distribute your modifications if you're distributing/selling the modifications. If you edit some bitchin' GPL code and keep it locked away inside a corporate intranet, I don't think there's any obligation (other than the "spirit" of the GPL) to open up your changes.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
"Certain decentralized forms of peer-to-peer file sharing present a challenge to the unidirectional view of distribution that is implicit in GPLv2 and Draft 1 of GPLv3. It is neither straightforward nor reasonable to identify an upstream/downstream link in BitTorrent distribution; such distribution is multidirectional, cooperative and anonymous. In systems like BitTorrent, participants act both as transmitters and recipients of blocks of a particular file, but they see themselves as users and receivers, and not as distributors in any conventional sense. At any given moment of time, most peers will not have the complete file."
Problem is that you could then in theory ask any BT user to provide the source code for that binary. More here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/bittorrent-dd2.html
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
MS distributes software (by the Novell voucher deal) that has licenses that read "GPL v2, or any later version". They knew when they did that that they were distributing software under a license that the FSF had freedom to change. So it goes.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
ASP loophole = the fact that the GPL doesn't cover programs you use over a network.
As an AC reply noted (thanks, AC!), there's something called the Affero GPL, and you can (if I'm reading the draft right, I could be wrong) distribute GPL3 code under the Affero GPL. If you do that then anyone installing the program on a network (e.g. a web server) will have to make the source available to its users.
Go somewhere random
I think the line-lengths are a dead giveaway... I saw them before I saw the words.
-1 not first post
That's the reason for the word 'or'. The software is double licensed. If you don't like the provisions of GPL version n just use the other side of 'or'. Basically this mean that you can not, in practice, restrict the code anymore than the most permissive side of the 'or' clause.
Try this link: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWi thGPL.
Basically, if you link your code to a GPL library then your code must be GPL as well. If the library is LGPL, your code does not need to be GPL as well.
Cheers,
Roger
Do you have any better hostages?
Yes, you are forced to, but only if the library is GPL, not LGPL. In that way, the GPL is admittedly a political license. Its purpose is to propagate this idea of freedom, and libraries are great vectors for that.
It happens that you'll hit the dilemma of choosing between a good quality proprietary library (you'll have to pay to use it), a good quality GPL library (you'll have to make your code GPL too, to use it), and a lesser quality BSD library (you can just use it). Yeah, I said lesser quality for the BSD, otherwise there's no dilemma, is there?
When somebody releases a library under the GPL (not the LGPL), it is to be used exclusively in GPL software. It is a tit-for-tat approach: you can use my GPL library if you subscribe to the GPL idea. If you don't agree, find another library.
Yup, it's mingling technical and political aspects, but you know what they say: if you don't do politics, politics do you
For LGPL libraries, no, you can keep your software under whichever license you want, as long as changes to the library itself are propagated GPL-style.
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Check your facts. Here's more info about the LGPLv3. The LGPL has gotten less discussion; it's based on the GPL, so once the GPL is changed the LGPL basically follows suit.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
The person who modifies the source and distributes the modifications (even in the form of a binary patch) is the one in violation.
Tivo already agreed to the GPL by distributing the original source (unless they have an explicit license).
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
There isn't. That's intentional. The spirit of the GPL says "When you base your stuff on GPL'd code, the people you give the results to are free to do the same things you did.". Tivo wants to be able to modify and redistribute someone else's code, but not allow anyone to modify and redistribute their code. Trying to finesse the point by saying "Well, you can modify the code and redistribute it, but the people you give it to can't use it in any meaningful way..." isn't going to fly.
It's a bit of a stretch, but here's how it is supposed to work.
Microsoft distributes vouchers with no expiration date for Novell's SUSE linux. Much of the software in that distro is licenced for GPL v2 or later.
Then GPLv3 comes into effect, and someone cashes in a voucher for SUSE linux after that date. NOW the software that is being distributed by microsoft is under the GPLv3 - (the receiver gets to choose) - and the GPLv3 basically says that if you distribute it with patent indemnity for some, you have to issue it with patent indemnity for all, and you can't distribute at all if its covered by patents you haven't also given a licence to use along with the GPL3 code.
Note, this wouldn't cover patents in the linux kernel itself as that is GPL v2 only, and there are no plans to move it to GPL v3. Microsoft's counter argument is that by only selling the vouchers, they're selling a service, not distributing the GPLv3 covered code themselves, and thus don't fall under the patent-licence-alongside-code provisions - that's novell's problem.
Novell theoretically will be in much bigger trouble though. They've made a big deal that their customers are covered by patent indemnities bought by novell from microsoft, but it doesn't apply to any other users of the same GPL code. That appears to be made specifically impossible under GPLv3, so Novell will either have to withdraw the indemnity altogether, extend it to everybody, or not distribute any GPLv3 code thats covered by the (unknown) patents in question. Since most GPLv2 code will automatically transition to GPLv3 code at the discretion of the receiver, thats a lot of code, and would likely sink SUSE linux as a distro.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.