| 1 |
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 16:46 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block |
| 4 |
> tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain |
| 5 |
> GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if |
| 6 |
> it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the |
| 7 |
> software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The |
| 8 |
> manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free |
| 9 |
> software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. see |
| 10 |
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you want to migrate to GPL-3, the most important question to solve will be: |
| 13 |
> is it possible to get an agreement to do that migration from every single |
| 14 |
> programmer involved in gentoo? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Like Ciaran said, the foundation holds the copyright, so it can |
| 17 |
re-license if it needs/wants to. The tivoization clause is certainly |
| 18 |
one of those subjects that can rapidly spiral downwards on this list, |
| 19 |
because it is largely a religious issue. In Tivo's case, they made the |
| 20 |
software freely available, but locked down their hardware. So, software |
| 21 |
wise, they did not affect freedom; hardware wise, it's their design and |
| 22 |
specs, they're under no obligations. Either way, I'm not sure how |
| 23 |
Gentoo is affected by the tivoization clause. If you can really show |
| 24 |
some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to move to it, then we can |
| 25 |
start talking about that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Seemant |
Archives