4 ms·
It's only "better" if you philosophically agree with its imposed restrictions on the code. I for example happen to agree with Linus arguments against v3. For ex
by greyman 11y ago
It's only "better" if you philosophically agree with its imposed restrictions on the code. I for example happen to agree with Linus arguments against v3. For example, the clause against "tivoization". If you believe tivoization is wrong, then yes v3 is better, otherwise it is not.
- baghira 11y agoYes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. Similarly the clarifications with regard to software distribution, which are enhanced compared to a license written in 1991. I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest. 1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.
- jordigh 11y agoWhat do you consider these restrictions to be? The way that GPLv3 works against tivoisation is that it requires downstream distributors to provide the information necessary to defeat it, such as private code-signing keys.[1] You think this is an unacceptable requirement? It seems no more onerous to me than the requirement in GPLv2 that the source code must include all necessary scripts to build and deploy the software. -- [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html