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."
One rule for Tivo and another rule for IBM?
Why should I have less right to install modified code on my mainframe than on the box under my TV?
For all Stallman's huffing and puffing about defending freedom, it sounds like he caved in to big business here.
Stallman always talks about freedom and all that, but what if I want to write a new DRM system? The software license should not tell you what you can or cannot code.
In a more /. speak: In GPL3 land, the license programs you!
I am completely against DRM, but I am completely in favor fo free will. People should have the right to code whatever they want. Ok, obviously, GPL3 is not compulsory, so you can release things in GLP2 if you want, but this does not change the fact that version 3 is removing freedoms from you, and not adding new ones.
On Services... (yeah, what -did- happen to that SAP bit?)
...
One major danger that GPLv3.1 will block is Googlization. Googlization means services contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the product is never published and so no source code has to be provided. The manufacturers of these services take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. GPLv3.1 new services clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On network-enabled devices...
One major danger that GPLv3.2 will block is Xboxization. Xboxization means devices contain GPL-covered software that connect to a network that you can't change, because the network shuts you out if it detects modified software... The manufacturers of these devices take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3.2's new network clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On ATI/nVidia Linux drivers..
One major danger that GPLv3.3 will block is BLOBization. BLOBization means software packages containing GPL-covered software that communicate to a non-GPL-covered piece of binary software (BLOB) that you can't change, because the BLOB is not covered by the GPL... The developers of these BLOBs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3.3's new network clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On not having to GPL programs compiled using GCC..
One major danger that GPLv4 will block is GPL-less compiling. GPL-less compiling means programs created using GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the actual program contains no GPL-covered source code. The developers of these programs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv4's derivative work clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On using e.g. The Gimp to create your graphics..
One major danger that GPLv4.1 will block is artization. artization means original works of art created using GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the work is strictly non-GPL. The artists of these works take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv4.1's new GPL-created works clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On working around the GPL by re-implementing (much the same that free software developers re-implement things covered by patents)..
One major danger that GPLv4.2 will block is reimplementation. reimplementation means software programs developed based on, but re-implemented in a different way of, GPL software that you can't change, because the work is not GPL. The developers of these programs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv4.2's new GPL-reimplementation clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On using GPL software internally only...
One major danger that GPLv5 will block is in-houseation. in-houseation means software programs based on, developed with, and so forth and so on as set forth in the other clauses, that is only used in-house that you can't change because the source code need not have been made available. The developers of these programs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv5's new out-house clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
And so forth and so on. It should be pretty clear that the GPL is all about freedom - pure and utter total freedom to do as you wish without restriction, as long as the product of this doing is available to everybody else to do with as they wish without restriction as well. Whether this is truly freedom or not (i.e. as opposed to the BSD-style licenses) is a never-ending debate.
Right, so let's say your local comic shop wants to buy an automatic transaction system for its inventory. Now there's lots of closed source alternatives out there, but being a geek they want to support open source and perhaps modify it themselves and release their source code. They look for some free software versions and the only one they find is a system that comes with preinstalled on the hardware (which is pretty good because their current hardware needs replacement) and so they go to buy it, before they realize that they won't be able to modify it, because its been tivoized. If this geek were buying it for his home he would have protections from this tivoization under the GPL, but because its for his comic shop, he has no such protections. This is good, why?
We discussed it and the company president was worried something like the GPL 3 could be a problem in the future. There were serious questions on whether or not we could us our modified code without releasing it. It was going to be used only on our company website and not released for sale to others, yet it would have been there for the public to use for a subscription. So the answer was use only code if it was available under the BSD-style license.
Since that day, I've been a fan of the GPL for personal/hobby projects, but have stayed clear of most opensource software in the business world other than popular CMS systems like Xoops and Joomla.
Mod me down if you'd like, but I've been of the opinion that if you truely believe in open and free software, BSD-style is the way to go. GPL maybe open, but it has strings attached and often is only free as in beer.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Being able to modify the pieces of code that control, say, tax reporting, is generally frowned upon (and might well make a point of sale system not legal to use in some locations.)
This is not confined to the US, either.
I've seen this exact post - word for word - in the Slashdot comments at least one other time. Is this a popular article that someone's pasting in? What's the story here?
You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
The FSF apparently now thinks the LGPL was not such a good idea, and they now prefer to GPL everything, with exceptions in some notable cases. Notice there won't be a LGPLv3.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
What, so current LGPL "or any later version" code won't get the "anti-Tivoization" and other benefits of the GPLv3? That sucks!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Suppose that Darth goes ahead and does it anyway, what does the enforcement process look like? Darth gets sued under copyright law, like IBM did against SCO with IBM's counter claims. The free software side has to prove two things:
In order the suit to be successfull against Darth, both steps have to succeed. Step (2) can be optimized by the FSF, by adjusting the terms of the GPL, to make it as difficult as possible for Darth. The GPLv3 is an improvement in this process. Step (1) is the step that the FSF can not control, because the applicable copyright law is written by the legislature (in the U.S. that would be congress), not by the FSF! Therefore, step (1) is the weak point! If Microsoft is ever sued under the copyright law because of the coupons, Microsoft will attack the week point of the argument (1). This is what Microsoft's lawyers will say:
The key assertion in the above is:
If Microsoft can win on the key assertion. Then it will win. If the lawyers for the free software side can knock out the key assertion then they will win.
Why do the coupons exist in the first place? Why did not Microsoft just hand out SuSE installation DVDs? The reason is obvious. Microsoft did not want to become a GNU/Linux distributor. The coupons are a dodge to get around this. The whole raison d'etre for the coupons was that that Microsoft avoid becoming a GNU/Linux distributor! Can anyone believe that Microsoft allowed the coupon scheme to proceed, without first getting on Lexis and finding out whether the scheme would work? It is guaranteed that in some Microsoft lawyer's briefcase, there is a brief. And that brief deleniates in excruciating detail why the coupon scheme does not make Microsoft a GNU/Linux distributor. And the brief was checked and rechecked by multiple lawyers before the coupon scheme was ever allowed to proceed.
The free software argument against the MS-Novel coupon scheme, is a chain. And like any chain, it is only as strong as its weakest link. It is no good for free software advocates to sit back and congratulate themselves on how strong their strong point (2) is. Of course it is strong! The FSF deliberately designed the GPLv3 to make it strong! The point is, that Microsoft is not going to attack this strong point. Microsoft is going to attack the weak point (1).
Instead of congratulating them selves, free software advocates should be critically examining their own arguments looking for weak points. And when they find one, they should research the caselaw looking for ways to shore up their arguments! They should not be replying to the weak points with mere repeated assertion of what they hope should be true, instead they should do some real scholarship.
Let us not forget the anti-patent provisions of GPLv2! It includes an "im
While a company could Tivoize your code in locked-down hardware, they still have to release ALL changes to your code. However, I too would like to see an optional clause that the developer can choose whether to allow "Tivoization" or not.
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
I'm not debating the point I'm just trying to be even handed.
My concern is the market is going to go the way the market is going to go regardless of which maefesto of computer ethics and the greater good one wishes to espouse.
My concern is that If the GPL is modified into a political hammer It might go poorly if the linux community is bound into a system they cannot modify back later. This appears not to be the case though according to the other reply.
P.s. you may want to rewrite that thing I'm having trouble with the coherency of it. Arguments that don't make sense tend to have a negative rather than positive effect on one's cause. I'm not talking about concepts necessarily , more like punctuation, sentence structure and assumed points. It's very hard to understand what you are saying.
It's kind of insane to think that this will stop anything. The PS3 runs Linux (a generic PPC Linux no less) with no problems at all. It sure as hell does not mean you can access the proprietary portions of the PS3 that Sony don't want you to see. Why? Because Linux is running over a virtualized set of hardware. I'm sure if push came to shove that Tivo would do exactly the same thing, ensuring whatever code or functionality they wished to hide stayed hidden.