[theme-reviewers] GPL

[Chandra Maharzan]

Thanks for this discussion. I had the same understanding. While
WordPress is set so that anyone can reuse or change the code but GPLv3
doesn't allow this. Even it is mentioned GPLv2 and v3 are incompatible
with each other.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>



-- 
cmans