<font color="#333333"><font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">fair enough</font></font></font><div><font color="#333333"><font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></font></font></font></div><div><font color="#333333"><font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Emil<br>
</font></font></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Otto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:otto@ottodestruct.com" target="_blank">otto@ottodestruct.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin Howe <<a href="mailto:ben@beh.me.uk">ben@beh.me.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
> What term don't you agree with, or just v3 generally? I trust you agree with<br>
> v2? Just curious.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree with the GPLv2 because it addresses a specific need, which is<br>
open-source software. The GPLv3 attempts to extend itself to exercise<br>
scope outside of what I see that need was.<br>
<br>
For example, the GPLv3 says this:<br>
"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or<br>
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as<br>
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the<br>
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a<br>
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the<br>
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied<br>
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply<br>
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install<br>
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has<br>
been installed in ROM)."<br>
<br>
This is the "Tivoization" clause. It essentially says that if you make<br>
a hardware device with GPLv3 code in it, and you retain the ability to<br>
upgrade the code (like remote upgrades and such), then you must give<br>
away any "keys" or whatever else you have that prevent the end-user<br>
from running modified copies of the software. This came from companies<br>
such as Tivo using Linux on their boxes, and supporting remote<br>
upgrading and connectivity and such, but using a hardware signature to<br>
prevent unsigned code from running.<br>
<br>
And see, I'm actually fine with that. If some hardware manufacturer<br>
were to use my code in a device like that, then I'd want to allow that<br>
usage. As an open-source software author, I want more secure code in<br>
my devices, and for companies to be able to upgrade them without also<br>
having to deal with hackers attempting to undermine their service.<br>
Restricting open source software in this manner is not something I<br>
want to happen, or to be applied to any code I write.<br>
<br>
Another problem with the GPLv3 is the "Additional Terms" section,<br>
which can be used by authors in restrictive ways and yet allow them to<br>
continue to claim that their software is "GPL". For example, there is<br>
at least one company that makes a flash player which uses this section<br>
to attempt to control their code in a way that makes it difficult for<br>
others to modify and use it. It's entirely possible to use it, but<br>
their additional terms mean that any modifications have to be somewhat<br>
extensive to comply with those terms. Also, the entire "Patents"<br>
section is highly discriminatory, and severely limits the potential<br>
scope of open-source software under the GPLv3.<br>
<br>
Things like that. I don't like it, it wasn't necessary at all, and the<br>
GPLv2 works fine for the cases I want it to work for.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
-Otto<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>