[theme-reviewers] GPL

[Emil Uzelac]

fair enough

Emil

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin Howe <ben at beh.me.uk> wrote:
> > What term don't you agree with, or just v3 generally? I trust you agree
> with
> > v2? Just curious.
>
> I agree with the GPLv2 because it addresses a specific need, which is
> open-source software. The GPLv3 attempts to extend itself to exercise
> scope outside of what I see that need was.
>
> For example, the GPLv3 says this:
> "If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
> specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
> part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
> User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
> fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
> Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
> by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
> if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
> modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
> been installed in ROM)."
>
> This is the "Tivoization" clause. It essentially says that if you make
> a hardware device with GPLv3 code in it, and you retain the ability to
> upgrade the code (like remote upgrades and such), then you must give
> away any "keys" or whatever else you have that prevent the end-user
> from running modified copies of the software. This came from companies
> such as Tivo using Linux on their boxes, and supporting remote
> upgrading and connectivity and such, but using a hardware signature to
> prevent unsigned code from running.
>
> And see, I'm actually fine with that. If some hardware manufacturer
> were to use my code in a device like that, then I'd want to allow that
> usage. As an open-source software author, I want more secure code in
> my devices, and for companies to be able to upgrade them without also
> having to deal with hackers attempting to undermine their service.
> Restricting open source software in this manner is not something I
> want to happen, or to be applied to any code I write.
>
> Another problem with the GPLv3 is the "Additional Terms" section,
> which can be used by authors in restrictive ways and yet allow them to
> continue to claim that their software is "GPL". For example, there is
> at least one company that makes a flash player which uses this section
> to attempt to control their code in a way that makes it difficult for
> others to modify and use it. It's entirely possible to use it, but
> their additional terms mean that any modifications have to be somewhat
> extensive to comply with those terms. Also, the entire "Patents"
> section is highly discriminatory, and severely limits the potential
> scope of open-source software under the GPLv3.
>
> Things like that. I don't like it, it wasn't necessary at all, and the
> GPLv2 works fine for the cases I want it to work for.
>
> -Otto
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120808/25ed8748/attachment.htm>