http://technocrat.net/d/2007/6/15/21602
------ GPLv3, DFSG, Tivo, and GPLv3 (a different part of it) Timothy Brownawell Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:32:37 PDT Open Source Software The current draft of the GNU GPL v3 includes several paragraphs intended to prevent "Tivoization", or the use of GPL software in non-user-modifiable devices. This seems to be at odds with the paragraph on compilations, and also with the "Fields of Endeavor" section (s.6) of the DFSG. (It is also very clearly against the spirit of the "no contamination" section (s.9), although that section is worded to only cover contamination of software.) Compilations A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. COTS hardware has an odd tendency to not be designed around specific pieces of software, and devices assembled from such hardware would tend to have a similar lack of dependence. So I kinda suspect that the hardware is independent of the software. I would also say that the software must be independent of the hardware, or where woult Tivo have gotten it from in the first place, when nobody *had* the hardware yet? So, I would argue that if the Tivo were purely software, it should be covered as an "aggregate". And this does not seem to be disputed, as I haven't noticed calls for the Tivo hardware to be GPL'd if they want to continue distributing it. An example: say I have a closed-source IDE, and ship it with GCC as the compiler. Let's further say that this IDE only accepts a compiler binary which has been signed by the IDE distributors, and that the version GCC it ships with has been modified to accept a different command-line argument syntax that this IDE uses. Is this aggregation? GCC clearly isn't dependent on the IDE, and if the IDE was dependent on GCC then why did GCC have to be modified? It could just as easily work with any other compiler that took the same special syntax, GCC was just used because it provided a convenient starting point. What makes hardware special? "Fields of Endeavor" There are some devices which legally cannot be fully user-modifiable, such as software radios. I would rather suspect that this would count as a "Field of Endeavor", and so make the proposed GPLv3 DFSG-incompatible. There is also the possibility of devices which cannot work (or cannot legally work) without approval by some third party (such as, perhaps, video players and various movie industry groups like the MPAA or AACS LA). It seems just as reasonable to also consider making this kind of device as a "Field of Endeavor", which again would be forbidden by GPLv3 if the controlling party chose to forbid user-modifiable devices. Making the proposed GPLv3 again DFSG-incompatible. "No Contamination" The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. I think it odd that this is limited to software, and can't seem to find any discussion of this. If the limitation is regarded as an oversight, as seems reasonable, then the Tivo section in the new GPL is entirely contrary to this section. The OSI Open Source Definition The OSI Open Source Definition is very very similar to the DFSG, and the current proposed GPLv3 has all of the same problems and likely problems with it that it does with the DFSG. This is a bad idea. Do we really want a license which is of many minds regarding compilations? And do we really want large numbers of basic utilities to move to a license that excludes them from probably the most freedom-concerned distribution there is? That should cause some major forks and incredible hard times as it fragments the community. For a relevant flamewar from LKML to warm your coffe with, see http://kerneltrap.org/node/8382. A debian-legal thread about GPLv3 can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg36757.html. ------ -- "So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'. Free, well that means stuff you don't pay for" -- Eben Moglen ("Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal") _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
