[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3

From: Martin Pool
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:52:13 +1000

Wearing my own personal hat, I am not a big fan of the GPLv3.  Having
different licensing rules depending on whether the program


On 14 April 2011 16:32, Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> wrote:
> ext Joe MacDonald <address@hidden> writes:
>> There's actually a number of reasons but they all amount to something like 
>> "we
>> are writing proprietary code and don't want to be forced to open-source any 
>> of
>> it".
> In my experience, that is not the concern with GPLv3.  GPLv2 and GPLv3
> are quite the same in this regard, and if you have made your peace with
> GPLv2 by following its conditions, then GPLv3 wont make your life any
> harder.
> What _is_ a concern, as far as I can see, are the 'anti-tivoization'
> clauses of the GPLv3: You can not have any kind of signing or
> checksumming in a product that prevents a modified version of GPLv3
> software to actually run.

.. except you can, if it is a commercial rather than a consumer product:

  >>> GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost
exclusively meant for businesses and organizations.

This distinction between consumer and personal use irks me, because it
harks back to the field-of-endeavour restrictions that were rife in
shareware and which GPLv2 and reformed BSD licences largely saved us;
partly because it seems very arbitrary; and partly because it seems to
have been arrived at through back-room negotiations with little clear
justification. (That last bit sounds almost too paranoid, but I have
never found a good statement why it was written this way.)  Businesses
have at least as much reason to want to be able to change software
they receive as private persons.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]