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

[wellingtonsteve]

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.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Pofy]

Wouldn't it have been better to simply post a link to were you copied this forum post from?

http://news.com.com/5208-1030_3-0.html?forumID=1&t hreadID=2246&messageID=11919&start=-1

Of course, it would not make it any more correct than it was back then.

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft

[Ravnen]

If you really wanted an open source OS that you could steal code from look at BSD.

If someone gives you something, you're not stealing from them. People who use BSD-like licences are giving away their work, usually because they want to maximise the amount of value others get from it. People who use the GPL are not giving away their work, they're making an agreement to exchange it for the work of others. The two objectives are simply different. Why is this so hard for some GPL advocates to understand?

Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft

[MrNemesis]

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.

Re:Bit torrent

[MadMidnightBomber]

"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

Re:The "ASP loophole"?

[bheer]

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.

libgcc, libstdc++, and Bison

[tepples]

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. Currently, libgcc, libstdc++, and Bison are under the GNU GPL v2. Programs compiled with GCC use libgcc (and libstdc++ if written in C++), and parsers created with Bison use the Bison boilerplate parser. These libraries are GPL with an exception that permits combining the library with the executable without bringing the resulting executable under the GPL in the majority of cases. For example, this is the text of libgcc's exception:

In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs, and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine executable.) Other Slashdot users have expressed worry that the FSF might end this exception. But I see no basis for this worry.