OSNews

weather the reason for wanting to lock up software is to provide a 'better' DRM or anything else, it goes against the idea of being able to modify and run GPL'd code.

If an author wants to release their code and ensure that the rights of others to modify and run that code are protected and not taken away through a back door like 'tivoization' (or to my mind, the far more potentially dangerous 'trust computing' platforms) then GPL3 is a stronger choice than GPL2.

Now, like all code, if someone wants to incorporate my code into a product and the 'price' I've set on the use of my copyrighted work is that certain end user rights are protected, then I expect that price to be paid, no differently than would any software supplier who charged $ for a software license. If someone takes my code and adheres to the letter of the license but, to mind, doesn't 'pay' me the price I'm charging (in this case, end use rights) then I'm going to look to make sure that that can't happen in the future. Which is basically how the anti-digital locks part of GPL3 came about.

You, me, the DRM implementers, Linus, Trolltech, the BSD guys and everyone else in the world may (almost certainly do) all have different ideas on what it is they want to receive in recompense for their effort and what they think makes up a good license to build upon. GPL3 is one choice among many and like all others, involves certain pros and cons for both those seeking to license their work under it and those seeking to use work licenses under it.