3 ms·
GPL 3 was about naking abuse and exploitation of GPL 2 harder. Seeing it as a failure shows our industry in a very sad light. This might ve a bit melodramatic
by glogla 10y ago
GPL 3 was about naking abuse and exploitation of GPL 2 harder. Seeing it as a failure shows our industry in a very sad light.
This might ve a bit melodramatic way to state it, but GPL 3 failing means evil thriumphing.
- greyman 10y agoIt boils down to a philosophical question about whether "tivoization" is good or bad. I am with Linus on this, I believe it is nothing wrong with it and I therefore doesn't support GPL v3.
- quadrangle 9y agoThere's nothing wrong with a world in which most citizens simply cannot control and modify most of the products they own? When everything runs software and communities of people can share ideas / updates that make the products better, you think there's nothing wrong with artificial restrictions that block people from doing this? Think of Stallman's initial story: he could program the printer upstairs to tell users over the network when it was jammed. But with the new version of the printer, he couldn't get the source code. A Tivoized printer would give him the code and then refuse to run his modification. So, you think there's nothing wrong with "screw you, you can go all day and find out only hours later that all your prints failed, even though you know how to fix this"? That's what Tivoization does, and this mild example is just a very mild one. It could be hell of a lot worse.
- pjmlp 10y agoWhich is the reality as companies doing "tivotization" moved into MIT style licenses, which allowed them to do exactly that. Even Apple and Google on their own products