3 ms·

"I would say this is a popular opinion" Completely irrelevant to the legality question. The fact that Eben Moglen and the FSF crafted the GPLv3 specifically t

"I would say this is a popular opinion" Completely irrelevant to the legality question. The fact that Eben Moglen and the FSF crafted the GPLv3 specifically to avoid future "tivoization" should serve as a pretty good indication that even the FSF's lawyers don't believe there is a (court-case winnable) legal infraction here when it comes to GPLv2 code, though everyone would agree the spirit and the purpose of the license often isn't being respected (which is, again, irrelevant to the actual legality when it comes to copyright law).

wtallis 11y ago
The addition of explicit anti-tivoization language to v3 does not imply that they think v2 couldn't have that effect, just that they thought it would be nice to have a stronger case. The GPLv3 makes it an almost-guaranteed win (to the extent that such a thing exists), but that doesn't mean trying with the GPLv2 is a guaranteed loss. And this conversation is clearly about more than just which legal interpretations hold force. It's about the spirit of the license and how closely it aligns (or not) with the interests of its more prominent users who have the standing and resources to at least try to to fight against uses that go against the spirit of the license.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "The addition of explicit anti-tivoization language to v3 does not imply that they think v2 couldn't have that effect, just that they thought it would be nice to have a stronger case." While true, having been around then and knowing what went on in the drafting committees, it's definitely the case that they were told they didn't think they had a winnable case with the GPLv2 language ;) If they had thought they did, they also would likely have gone after TiVO :)