A lengthy debate that began with a suggestion to dual license the Linux kernel under the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 continues on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Throughout the ongoing thread Linux creator Linus Torvalds has spoken out on the GPLv2, the upcoming GPLv3, the BSD license, Tivo, the Free Software Foundation, and much more. During the discussion, he was asked we he chose the GPLv2 over the BSD license when he's obviously not a big fan of the FSF.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
With their right, they can (1) modify software from the device, (2) expect to install the modified software on the device, and (3) expect to run the software on the device. While it's true that (2) and (3) are not associated with rights passed on by the GPL2, (1) simply is not the same for you as it is for Tivo.
I don't follow this logic at all. Anyone can modify the software from the device with the source code. This does not grant them the right to install it on that device though.
With modification comes a natural expectation. For Tivo, there is the natural prospect of using the modification on the device.
There comes any number of expectations. To study the code, to learn from it, to be able to use it. All of those can be met.
You're mixing up modification with installation here. While someone may "expect" something, they are not granted it by the GPL.
Member since:2006-08-26
I don't follow this logic at all. Anyone can modify the software from the device with the source code. This does not grant them the right to install it on that device though.
You are asserting a right of a hardware owner, Tivo, to install and run modified software. I just as easily could assert that with a right of modification of software comes the expectation that any modification that one person, such as a person with digital keys, could install and use on the device, any other person should have that same expectation when they modify. I assert that such an expectation is just bound up with the modification right. This expectation is not from left field but central to the notion of modification of software.
This takes not one iota of anything away from the likes of Tivo, since it is not their software to begin with. It's entirely their choice whether to use software that is covered by a license such as the GPLv3 which would enforce the rights associated with the expectations that I assert--and mercifully without my pathetic style of rhetoric about expectations.
An argument that would do far, far more than just change my mind would be to simply show how the anti-Tivoization clause goes against the spirit of the GPL. That's the big target, IMHO.
Edited 2007-06-18 22:44
Member since:
2006-08-26
The GPL2 granted these rights to TiVo and TiVo passed these rights on.
Tivo passes a right of modification on, but is it the same right that they have?
With their right, they can (1) modify software from the device, (2) expect to install the modified software on the device, and (3) expect to run the software on the device. While it's true that (2) and (3) are not associated with rights passed on by the GPL2, (1) simply is not the same for you as it is for Tivo.
With modification comes a natural expectation. For Tivo, there is the natural prospect of using the modification on the device. For you, there is no such prospect. Modification is typically not some empty academic exercise, certainly not for Tivo, why so in any way for you? If it's diminished even to the tiniest degree for you, just because you are not Tivo and have no digital keys, you are simply not getting the same right.
"Why modify" is not some arbitrary question that we bring up for the fun of it, but involves a central characteristic of software that distinguishes it from hardware. Does it not deserve a meaningful and not artificial, legalistic treatment?
You appeal to the letter of the GPL2. I appeal also to its spirit(*), which is defined solely as the intent of its author, the FSF, and embodied in the form of the preambles to its licenses. My reference point is not a particular version of the GPL, but what any GPL is intended to do: promote the four freedoms. The preamble describes that a little bit, and the license text proper does an obviously imperfect job at living up to the preamble.
(*): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_the_law
Edited 2007-06-18 21:29