[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Brownawell: "GPLv3, DFSG, Tivo, and GPLv3
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Brownawell: "GPLv3, DFSG, Tivo, and GPLv3 (a different part of it)" |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:18:51 +0200 |
http://technocrat.net/d/2007/6/15/21602
------
GPLv3, DFSG, Tivo, and GPLv3 (a different part of it)
Timothy Brownawell Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:32:37 PDT Open Source Software
The current draft of the GNU GPL v3 includes several paragraphs intended
to prevent "Tivoization", or the use of GPL software in
non-user-modifiable devices. This seems to be at odds with the paragraph
on compilations, and also with the "Fields of Endeavor" section (s.6) of
the DFSG. (It is also very clearly against the spirit of the "no
contamination" section (s.9), although that section is worded to only
cover contamination of software.)
Compilations
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.
COTS hardware has an odd tendency to not be designed around specific
pieces of software, and devices assembled from such hardware would tend
to have a similar lack of dependence. So I kinda suspect that the
hardware is independent of the software. I would also say that the
software must be independent of the hardware, or where woult Tivo have
gotten it from in the first place, when nobody *had* the hardware yet?
So, I would argue that if the Tivo were purely software, it should be
covered as an "aggregate". And this does not seem to be disputed, as I
haven't noticed calls for the Tivo hardware to be GPL'd if they want to
continue distributing it.
An example: say I have a closed-source IDE, and ship it with GCC as the
compiler. Let's further say that this IDE only accepts a compiler binary
which has been signed by the IDE distributors, and that the version GCC
it ships with has been modified to accept a different command-line
argument syntax that this IDE uses. Is this aggregation? GCC clearly
isn't dependent on the IDE, and if the IDE was dependent on GCC then why
did GCC have to be modified? It could just as easily work with any other
compiler that took the same special syntax, GCC was just used because it
provided a convenient starting point.
What makes hardware special?
"Fields of Endeavor"
There are some devices which legally cannot be fully user-modifiable,
such as software radios. I would rather suspect that this would count as
a "Field of Endeavor", and so make the proposed GPLv3 DFSG-incompatible.
There is also the possibility of devices which cannot work (or cannot
legally work) without approval by some third party (such as, perhaps,
video players and various movie industry groups like the MPAA or AACS
LA). It seems just as reasonable to also consider making this kind of
device as a "Field of Endeavor", which again would be forbidden by GPLv3
if the controlling party chose to forbid user-modifiable devices. Making
the proposed GPLv3 again DFSG-incompatible.
"No Contamination"
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the
license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the
same medium must be free software.
I think it odd that this is limited to software, and can't seem to find
any discussion of this. If the limitation is regarded as an oversight,
as seems reasonable, then the Tivo section in the new GPL is entirely
contrary to this section.
The OSI Open Source Definition
The OSI Open Source Definition is very very similar to the DFSG, and the
current proposed GPLv3 has all of the same problems and likely problems
with it that it does with the DFSG.
This is a bad idea.
Do we really want a license which is of many minds regarding
compilations? And do we really want large numbers of basic utilities to
move to a license that excludes them from probably the most
freedom-concerned distribution there is? That should cause some major
forks and incredible hard times as it fragments the community.
For a relevant flamewar from LKML to warm your coffe with, see
http://kerneltrap.org/node/8382.
A debian-legal thread about GPLv3 can be found at
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36757.html.
------
--
"So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'. Free,
well that means stuff you don't pay for"
-- Eben Moglen ("Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal")
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Sin's Schwartz to Linus: "I invite you to my house for dinner. I'll cook, you bring the wine.", (continued)
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Sin's Schwartz to Linus: "I invite you to my house for dinner. I'll cook, you bring the wine.", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/13
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- BSD's de Raadt to Sin's Schwartz: "let me give an example of the duplicity of Sun", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/13
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linux-Watch: "Linspire, Microsoft in Linux-related deal", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "I'm damn fed up with the FSF", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "I'd be a total moron to relicense the kernel under what I believe is a worse license", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben: "Lawyers licensed to practice in any country are invited", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "You're a moron. I'm the original author", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "I'm intelligent", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "It's about keeping *me* happy ... Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT!", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "the current GPLv3 draft looks fine apart from ... Just google for torvalds tit-for-tat ... I don't ask for money.", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/14
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Brownawell: "GPLv3, DFSG, Tivo, and GPLv3 (a different part of it)",
Alexander Terekhov <=
- dot Communist Eben meets Indian Marxist-Leninist (his life after GPLv3 so to speak :-) ), Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/16
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "GPLv2 does not state that you have to become a slave of rms", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/16
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "I've been told by several independent sources..." (re "GPLv2 is not a 'contract' but a 'pure copyright license'"), Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/16
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Landley: "Not Going There (tm)" (re 'license' vs 'contract'), Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/16
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- SYS-CON: "Think Linus Will Defer to Sun on GPLv3? The Answer May Hinge on a Bottle of Wine", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/16
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Landley: "Not Going There (tm)" (re 'license' vs 'contract'), rjack, 2007/06/16
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Viro: "you are preaching to non-believers", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/16
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Viro: "_that_ is a final draft?", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/19
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Williams: "it's time to drop the GPL", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/19
- Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Harkes: "GPLv3 seems to fall short on actually preventing tivoization", Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/19