Should Developers Switch to GPLv3? 174
Isaac IANAL asks: "Victor Loh of ExtremeTech writes about the General Public License version 3's clause, which requires releasing digital signature keys — in other words, the software should be able to retain interoperability when modified. The article raises an objection, citing Linus Torvalds, that the so-called TiVoisation clause would inhibit open-source adoption in embedded devices among entities such as governments, health care providers, and finance firms. The issue has been discussed on Slashdot many times before. If you're a developer for a platform that needs to run signed code, could you use software under the GPLv3, or does the GPLv3 (at its current, unreleased state) truly inhibit your control as a developer over your device?"
Re:should they? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html [gnu.org]
Some people think it is antithetical to the purported aims of the GPL and the FSF.
Re:should they? (Score:3, Informative)
See www.creativecommons.org for more info.
Stop spreading confusion! (Score:5, Informative)
Spreading it is (either by ignorance or by malice) helping bad companies, like TiVo for instance.. Please read on the following to understand WHAT the GPL v3 draft says.
The draft version of the GPLv3 says that IF AND ONLY IF the software you want to run, needs some special digital signature, then and only then must the digital signatures acompany the source code.
So, what does all this blurb mean? Is Linus so obtuse he can't read english? No. So...?
I could understand it if he said that he felt he couldn't ignore the contributions of some hardware manufacturers, but what does he say? He says that GPLv3 "sucks" because it prevents legitimate businesses like those of TiVo. That if users don't like that hardware, they can use other hardware.
As usual, untrue pragmatism. The pragmatist doesn't idealize about perfect future conditions that may or may not happen. The true pragmatist solves the problem in a practical and definitive form: preventing the harm from happening.
read these first, they're a good base (Score:4, Informative)
For explanations of the changes in GPLv3, I highly recommend reading (or skimming) the transcripts of the GPLv3 conferences [fsfeurope.org]. Each transcript includes the subsequent Q&A session, and each begins with a list of links to the topics covered and the questions asked.
The freshest transcript is RMS in Bangalore in August [fsfeurope.org]. Here are the others:
Many also include links to audio and/or video recordings, and there's more general information about the timeline and how to participate on FSFE's GPLv3 page [fsfeurope.org].
Also, if you want to help raise the quality of discussion, a useful and really easy thing to do is to pass these links on to others.
Code signing: WHO has the key? (Score:3, Informative)
Governments, healthcare providers, and finance firms don't need to be able to make sure their software can be maintained? They want to be locked into a single source?
This is such a bullshit argument. Nothing about GPL3 prevents you from making your own machine tamper-proof. What they're really talking about, is distributing widgets to other people such that the other people cannot maintain or "tamper with" the widget. Governments, healthcare providers, and finance firms do not need that. Only media companies [think they] need that.
From submitter:
Before you finish that question, let's get something straight. When that platform is deployed, the end user will have the ability to install or choose what key(s) (perhaps even the end user's own key) the platform will accept, right? If so, then I really don't think you're going to have a problem with GPL3.
If the end user will not be able to sign code themselves, then fuck off. You sure as hell aren't talking about using DRM as a security feature, because users are the party who are ultimately responsible for their own security. Nobody cares if your project is GPL3 compatable or not, and nobody cares if your project uses Linux, because Linux is almost useless, like any other OS, if users cannot get maintenance whenever they want it. If your project can't get bugs fixed or features added (including features that you, the developer, think are bad ideas) then your project might as well run MS Windows. Maybe Torvalds doesn't care about users anymore, but Linux didn't get all the other developers working on it (including the ones who wrote those free drivers that you salivate over) by fucking the users over. Linux attracted people and became a successful project by not being user-hostile.
The licence doesn't say that (Score:3, Informative)
GPLv3 only puts restrictions on redistribution, not on use. (Just like v2.)
Re:Stop spreading confusion! (Score:5, Informative)
No. You have misinterpreted.
Section 1201 of Title 17 (a.k.a. DMCA) defines circumvention as bypassing controls without authorization, and that authorization isn't something that comes from the law or the government -- it comes from the copyright holder. What the GPL is really doing here, is saying that the GPLed works' copyright holder grants authorization. If you withhold authorization (thereby triggering the malignancy of DMCA) then you have violated the license.
A lot of people seem to think that DMCA prohibits descrambling, but it really just prohibits descrambling without permission. If I hold the copyright on a CSS-protected movie and sell it to you, and I say "You may crack the CSS on this movie" then you legally may crack the CSS on that movie; you will not be violating Article 17 Section 1201. Now imagine if I had some little piece of a movie, such that lots of people wanted to make derived works of my movie fragment, and I licensed it under the condition "you, the licensee, may not forbid circumvention of CSS on your derived work." Then anyone who used my movie fragment, would have to allow CSS to be cracked on their movie. That's essentially what GPL3 is doing here.
It's not "locking horns" with the legal system; it's playing within the rules. And one of the rules is that the copyright holder may grant authorization to bypass.
Re:Depends on your needs? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I've read the new draft many times thanks (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think that it's getting into EULA territory, really, as the GPL still would not apply to end users. It only applies to people who want to engage in covered activity. Mere use isn't one of those.
And also, EULAs continue to grow in strength, though the main issue there has to do with how they're formed, not what they deal with. No one would have any argument at all against a EULA that was presented and agreed upon in a different fashion. In regard to formation, the GPL is on the same ground it always was.
Re:You've just described GPLv2 (Score:3, Informative)
The philosophy is the same. The primary motivating goal behind the GPL has always been to enable the end user the freedom to modify the software that they receive, in whatever fashion, and be able to share the software they're using (modified or not) with others. Patents inhibit that freedom. The restrictions on someone who uses patents as a weapon against Free Software are ONLY to the acts of modifying and distributing it, which is completely within copyright law.