I looked up what Linus Torvalds said about GPLv3 and still don't get it. He said something about tivo etc. What the f is tivo? Can you beautiful people explained to me? Thanks. Have a lovely day.
What is wrong with GPLv3_
Anthony Butler
Other urls found in this thread:
Jaxson Garcia
Here we go:
Tivoization /ˈtiːvoʊJˌzeJʃən/ is the creation of a system that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license (like the GPL), but uses hardware restrictions to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware. Richard Stallman coined the term in reference to TiVo's use of GNU GPL licensed software on the TiVo brand digital video recorders (DVR), which actively blocks users from running modified software on its hardware by design. Stallman believes this practice denies users some of the freedom that the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) was designed to protect. The Free Software Foundation refers to tivoized hardware as "tyrant devices".
TiVo's software incorporates the Linux kernel and GNU software, both of which are licensed under version 2 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv2). GPLv2 requires distributors to make the corresponding source code available to each person who receives the software. The goal of this requirement is to allow users of GPL-covered software to modify the software to better suit their purposes.
However, Stallman asserts that TiVo circumvented this goal by making their products run programs only if the program's digital signature matches those authorized by the manufacturer of the TiVo. So while TiVo has complied with the GPL v2 requirement to release the source code for others to modify, any modified software will not run on TiVo's hardware.
Robert Hill
In 2006, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) decided to combat TiVo's technical system of blocking users from running modified software. As the FSF was developing a new version of the GNU General Public License (GPL v3), it included language that prohibited this activity. The operating system kernel included in the TiVo is distributed under the terms of the GPL, and the FSF's goal is to ensure that all recipients of software licensed under the new GPL are not restricted by hardware constraints on the modification of distributed software. This new license provision was acknowledged by TiVo in its April 2007 SEC filing: "we may be unable to incorporate future enhancements to the GNU/Linux operating system into our software, which could adversely affect our business". The Linux kernel has not been changed to use GPL v3 due to certain problems perceived by its maintainers.
Andrew Reyes
Torvalds didn't want his kernel locked out tivo type devices due to GPLv3 license restrictions.
So he stuck with GPLv2.
Andrew Murphy
this, I don't understand how Jow Forums can still shill this disgusting fat ass on the sticky since v3
Grayson Brooks
I bet there's all kinds of things you can't understand.
Joshua Cox
I'm not on your side, you literal brainlet. I actually like the v3
Christian Perry
There is a certain type of person, the kind of who foams at CC0 and shouts "cuck license" at BSD-3, who would like to GNUed longer and harder. The AGPL isn't strict enough for them. Given the chance, they'd support a license that made sharing private changes mandatory and forbade commercial usage.
Brayden Gray
Sounds like free and in freedom.
Ethan Nelson
>and forbade commercial usage.
not at all, sweetie
gnu.org
Levi Rivera
Good if it doesn't apply to you. But it's fact that there are people on Jow Forums who think it's unacceptable for anyone to make money off their precious code contributions.
Anthony Lopez
Also, unlike GNU and most other major GPL projects, contributions to the Linux kernel do not require copyright assignment. Since Linux code is actually 'owned' by thousands of different people and organizations who agreed to license it under the GPL2, they would need to get permission from all those contributors to relicense it or reimplement/remove everything they couldn't get permission for.
Parker Jackson
I don't think that, I just think that it's unethical to make money from derivative work that is based on community contributions, without sharing the derivative work back with the community.
Adrian Scott
Then you are still the type I am talking about. Do you realize that far more than either the GPL or the AGPL demand of you?
Daniel Cooper
It's not.
Xavier Nguyen
I mean the objective of GNU was to make software free, not hardware. Ironic how you are limited not to do something on the hardware side while using GPL.
Aaron Gutierrez
the interesting thing is that stallman is right and torvalds is right
Charles Barnes
It is. You can make money off GPL code without sharing your modifications if your organization uses it internally or it runs on a publicly accessible server. You can make money off AGPL code without sharing your modifications if your organization uses it internally. Look it up, since it's in the FAQ. You are not obligated to share (A)GPL code with your organization's employees. Stallman approves of this.
Jace Rogers
>You can make money off GPL code without sharing your modifications if your organization uses it internally
Then you're not making money directly from the GPL code, so no. You're inventing an impossible scenario in order to backpedal.
Carter Murphy
>impossible scenario
>literally how all linux companies make money
Mason Ward
They're making money from HOSTING and providing SUPPORT or other stuff like advertising, not from the software itself. Note that this is not at all the same as directly making money from distributing and selling derivative code, which is protected by the GPL to begin with.
Logan Phillips
Also, I work at a so-called "Linux company". The profit is in proprietary code and hardware, not our open source drivers.
Henry Peterson
>free software enables you to make big $$$ off of related services
>b-b-but that software isn't making us money! we need proprietary licensing to do anything!
btw GPL allows you to sell derivative code
Jacob Barnes
>btw GPL allows you to sell derivative code
Yes, this isn't unethical. You need to re-read my original post, I clearly pointed out the unethical behaviour.
Grayson Watson
i think you're wrong, free software gives you the freedom to form communities, it doesn't give you the obligation to
Henry Hill
I don't care about what you think, the GPL protects against it anyway. Stop using GPL'd code if you don't want to share your derivative work, you thieving kike.
Hunter Russell
< GPLv3 differs from GPLv2 in following things:
> 1) Patents, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 by using GPL software as something you build your software on, but then don't share it because while source code may be available, you patent the code. It was possible with GPLv2.
> 2) DMCA, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 with using DMCA which makes circumventing DRM illegal in US. It was possible with GPL2.
> 3) Tivoization, i.e. you can't circumvent GPLv3 using digital encryption, when you release the source code, but not the necessary cryptographic keys.
Kayden Martin
>waaaah i want freedom but I don't want people to be able to fork the project
i've made many derivative works of GPL'd code that the original developers/community didn't care about and rejected my patches, doesn't bother me, means i get to sell it for an even higher price
Eli Perry
GPLv3 breaks certain business models. One major one being to sell the hardware at a very reduced price, or even at a loss, to get the hardware into peoples hands and then make profit from software sales. Game consoles are/were a good example of this.
With the GPLv3 the masses can buy hardware and then use it for something other than the creator intended and now they need to swallow that loss.
Muh freedoms.
Gavin Reyes
people can still do that except now the meme is to sell the hardware at a reduced price while plugging "cloud services", expect things to go farther in this direction (which is actually quite GPLv3 and AGPL friendly)
Grayson Myers
How fucking bad are you at programming if even hobbyist koders think your stuff is shit.