Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
GNU is Not Unix Slashback

GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3 567

chessweb writes "Here is a rather enlightening article by Richard Stallman on the reasons for moving to GPLv3 that puts the previous TiVo post into the right context." From the article: "One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called 'appliances') contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software... The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, 2007 @04:39AM (#19378883)
    As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
    Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
    some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
    very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
    exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

    Although we met several technical challenges along the way
    (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
    were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
    went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
    considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

    So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
    we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
    was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
    called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
    states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
    Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
    we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
    now be available at no cost to our competitors.

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
    products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
    its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

    Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
    use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
    position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
    another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
    option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

    I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
    with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
    guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
    experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
    associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
    something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
    Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
    it remains only a bit player.

    Thank you for your time.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, 2007 @04:49AM (#19378931)
    I preferred this troll with the "kernel-level programming in
    visual basic"

    Kids today ...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, 2007 @06:37AM (#19379613)
    Nice to see a classic troll still catching the idiots.

    (It is one of egg troll's many masterpieces [google.co.uk])
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, 2007 @01:00PM (#19383763)

    Remember Windows' TCP/IP stack used to behave identically to BSD's, hinting to same underlying code.

    Or God-forbid... standards compliance.

    I hear they patched that bug somewhere in Windows 2000.

"I shall expect a chemical cure for psychopathic behavior by 10 A.M. tomorrow, or I'll have your guts for spaghetti." -- a comic panel by Cotham