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:"consumer products" only

[bateleur]

From the article:

The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. (The latest draft of GPLv3 states this criterion explicitly.)

Freedumb....

[cjjjer]

The more and more I read about the whole GPL thing the more I realize that it's not about freedom but more about control. If something is free then it is free, you have the freedom to do anything and everything to it without consequences from the originator, yet the GPL is hardly that. I think that the people in the GPL camp are trying to blur the distinction between freedom and control to make it sound like what is going on is good. No matter how you look at it the GPL is about control, the controlling of the object using a license and control is not freedom.