Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Sep 2006 12:03 UTC, submitted by anonymous
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL version 3, on which recent discussion has presented inaccurate information. The FSF has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 on their own code. We intentionally wrote GPLv2 (and GPLv1) so we would not have this power. Software developers will continue to have the right to use GPLv2 for their code after GPLv3 is published, and we will respect their decisions."
Thread beginning with comment 165713
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Actually, I have recently switched sides on this issue. I think the kernel devs are right. MUch as I hate DRM, its a hardware issue. A software licesnse is not the place to regulate hardware decisions. BEsides which, the main project this is dealing with is the kernel which will always be GPLv2. From a developers view, Tivo did nothing wrong. THey gave back to the community everything they changed in the kernel. They just didnt allow you to hack their hardware. Too bad! DOn't buy their crap! They could have just as easily designed the device to not be upgradeable. Their hardware, their decision. They followed the rules and now we're supposed to be mad at them because they did something we didnt think of?

And about patents. This is why we are suppose to have separate laws for patents and copyrights. Patents are suuposed to be for hardware only. so stop and think about this scenario for a second and think about why companies are fearful of this. If I make widgets (assume I own the patent for this) and put linux on them to make them run, GPLv3 says that I can't sue anyone for patent infringement for using that item. Fine if that is my customers. What happens when its my competitors? What if they reverse engineer widgets and start selling them? Will I be able to sue them? The language isnt clear enough for companies to gamble their patent portfolio on.

That doesnt even count things like knowing exactly what every bit of code does so you know if its going to cause you a problem in 6 months time. We're asking too much of companies with this whole clause. No one knows what every bit of linux code does.

Reply Score: 2

davegetrag Member since:

And when dell does the same it will be alright with you? When dell decides what runs or doesn't run on your machine you are cool with that?


v2 was and is about software freedoms - v3 will be about software freedoms. No more and no less. v2 required appropriate measure to ensure software freedoms - v3 requires new and appropriate measures to ensure software freedoms.

v3 is not anti-DRM it is pro freedom, DRM is anti-freedom so therefore DRM is anti-v3 not the other way around. ;)

Software freedoms is what got us where we are and what continues the accellerated pace. What good will innovation be when every company pulls a TIVO?

Reply Parent Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:

You are assuming that every company will pull a Tivo. Are you forgetting that there is a lot of demand for machines that will run linux? Someone will make a machine that is drm free. Sure, maybe dell will go with some DRM that wont allow unsigned code. Course that will mean no more dells for me. Like I said, I hate DRM. But I dont think that the GPL is the right tool to use to fight that argument.

Reply Parent Score: 1