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

[bheer]

Well, open source in general shills (unknowningly, I guess) for Big Blue's software services strategy. They love open source because they lost the software products war (we know who won) so they want to devalue software by opening up the source so that services dominate. And lest you forget, IBM Global Services is one of the biggest providers of services and can market their stuff better than most companies.

Also, if you look at IBM's software offerings, they've tended to go up the business chain (they were planning to launch Websphere for verticals at one point, not sure if they've done that yet) so over time you'll see infrastructure code become open-source commodities no one makes much money out of, whereas all the money is made on delivering services on top of Websphere for Healthcare, etc. This sounds good in theory (in fact there are parts to this strategy I actually agree with) except for the fact that it encourages building ever larger, ever more Byzantine pieces of software that are actually worth something in services revenue. People who come up simple, innovative software solutions will find themselves OSS-cloned in no time.

Also, what happened to closing the ASP loophole? :-) I guess the FSF doesn't want to cause too much pain to folk like Google.

Anyhow, I commented on a related issue in the Tivo thread, and RMS fanboys are still splitting hairs replying to that. So if any of them have come here to carp about this post, hi! :-)

GPLv3 anti-business

[aussie_a]

Y'know I've seen the trolls here say things like "the GPL is anti-business" and "it wants to bring down big business" and I've thought "alright, they're simply trolls, I'll ignore them." However Stallman's own words show the truth in the words of these so-called trolls (although they might still be trolls, that doesn't mean they're wrong):

GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. So apparently Stallman doesn't think owners of businesses deserve the same rights and protections that consumers get. I guess Stallman doesn't people who buy things for their business deserve these same rights, because after all, business owners don't deserve the same freedoms they have in their own personal transactions as they do in their business transactions. Sounds pretty anti-business to me.

Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 is designed to turn them against Microsoft So not only does the GPL v3 not grant business owners the same rights as consumers have, it is also designed to hurt a very specific business. That sounds pretty anti-business to me.

Megacorporations collect thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller developers. A shame Stallman doesn't seem to realize these smaller developers he's worried about, can include small businesses. Otherwise he might have fought to have them given the same protections as consumers. As it is, Stallman's apparent anti-business agenda thwarts some of his claimed goals. I've fought and defended the GPL here against people who came to denounce it, and I hope someone will come along and explain to me why I'm wrong. But until someone does, I'm seriously reconsidering my support for the GPL.

Re:libgcc, libstdc++, and Bison

[dkf]

Other Slashdot users have expressed worry that the FSF might end [the libgcc] exception. But I see no basis for this worry.

On what grounds do have this tremendous outbreak of optimism? Scummy license tricks have occurred in the past with some programs; what guarantees that the FSF won't do so in the future (e.g. to solve a budget problem or to further some political agenda)?