9 ms·

I wish people on hn wouldn't be so opposed to GPL and copy left licensing, because the four freedoms as presented by RMS really saw this coming a long time ago.

I wish people on hn wouldn't be so opposed to GPL and copy left licensing, because the four freedoms as presented by RMS really saw this coming a long time ago. The same principles apply to hardware. I think its a salient point that the same companies opposed to or abusing copy left are the same ones locking users out from hardware repairs.

jordigh 9y ago
> RMS really saw this coming a long time ago And one of the reasons for GPLv3: the anti-tivoisation clause. You should be allowed to install modified software in your own devices. People have misconstrued anti-tivoisation that to mean that Apple can't keep malware out of your iPhone by key signatures, but that's not what it means, nor was it the primary reason why Apple wanted to prevent their users from installing unsigned software. It's about giving control to users and giving them both the key and the lock and letting them decide what goes on their own machines. Trying to paternalistically tell users what they can and cannot install has culminated in a method of control for repairs and obsolescence.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  That isn't what it means but the problem with it is that it has extra knock on effects. There is a reason GPL v2 was incredibly popular and GPLv3 basically killed all momentum and it wasn't because GPLv3 was better. At least not from a business point of view. And that, at its core, is the issue. In a world where the only licence is GPLv3... it works. But in a world where people can choose other licenses - it won't be the choice of most. It's a shame because I love the GPLv2 but I'll never use GPLv3 and honestly it's just less hassle to chose MIT for most companies.
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    Why is the "business point of view" relevant here? It's the business point of view that got us DRM in the first place.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Because in the real world you get your products from said businesses. If your favorite vendors don't like the license, they wont adopt it, period.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        The same business that will happily take anything that is MIT licensed, to reduce development costs by getting software at $0 and never contributing anything back. When they do, is only a few bread crumbs to the villagers, while keeping the crown jewels behind their gates. But hey, "they are contributing back see how nice they are!". I used to be a big (L)GPL zealot during the 90's, nowadays I just reverted back to using commercial software, because the community just doesn't care about companies taking their work away.
        coldtea 9y ago
        >The same business that will happily take anything that is MIT licensed, to reduce development costs by getting software at $0 and never contributing anything back. Isn't that part of what people chose MIT for? To allow businesses to adopt their project without having to "contribute anything back"? >I used to be a big (L)GPL zealot during the 90's, nowadays I just reverted back to using commercial software, because the community just doesn't care about companies taking their work away. Isn't that their own decision? Whether to worry about or not? People chose MIT because they are OK with this scenario.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        Yeah, but then they aren't entitled to complain that cannot get access to the fork used by company XYZ, that the *BSDs get less love than GNU/Linux, embedded OEMs don't publish their clang forks, Android devices are locked down to a specific version,.....
        _ph_ 9y ago
        Right, and at least I am not aware of complaints like such. My experience rather is, that any larger customisations of open source software are usually propagated back to the project for the simple reason of saving the hassle of maintaining a fork of that software.
  - badsectoracula 9y ago
    You should stop looking things only from "a business point of view", often what is best for business is bad for the users - even if they don't understand it themselves to care enough about (at which point what the business is doing is little different from taking advantage of their users' lack of knowledge and should be shamed instead of used as an example for others to mimic).
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Thinking like yours gave us GPLv3 and less subsequent adoption of copyleft licenses. Which means you’ve got a lovely and ideologically pure hill to die on, but die you will. In the real world code is useless without being adopted. The largest adopters? Businesses. They don’t want to use GPLv3? Less developers likely to use it (market forces I’m afraid). So no, I’ll keep paying attention to what works and not be beholden to the idealistic notions of the FSF, thanks.
      - flukus 9y ago
        What business stay away from GPL3 that were OK with GPL2? The only one I can think of is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the wider OSS community anyway. Most companies are still using linux with gnu tools so the version 3 hasn't affected them at all.
        alacombe 9y ago
        Back in 2008, a large "feature-phone" chip maker I used to work for decided the GPLv3 was a total no-go while the GPLv2 was kinda reluctantly accepted.
        _ph_ 9y ago
        Linux is still GPL2 and some companies decided to stay with the GPL2-licensed versions of those GNU tools.
        maccard 9y ago
        > is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the wider OSS community anyway. Forgetting about a little project called clang? Swift is open source, WebKit is open source (with a tarnished history). I’m not claiming Apple are perfect, but saying they’re free loaders who don’t benefit is a flat out lie.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    GPL3 is bad because Linus poopooed it? He had no choice, and V3 addresses real weaknesses with V2.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      I never mentioned Linus. I don’t really care what he thinks. It’s true it addresses weaknesses (more oversights) but it does it in the most overreaching and aggressive way. Which is a problem for adoption.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    GPLv3 has many, many improvements over GPLv2. In fact, there are several improvements that should make it _more_ favourable to companies: 1. The terms of section 8 (termination) are much "nicer" to people who make mistakes and infringe on the terms of the GPLv3. GPLv2 was very hard-line, and in principle the revocation of rights was immediate. This is something that companies should _like_ about GPLv3. 2. The text is written to be far similar to a legal document (GPLv2 uses non-standard formatting especially with regards to how definitions of terms are done), which makes it easier for lawyers to understand and argue about the license. 3. It is compatible with Apache-2.0 now, by having a patent protection clause that is similar to Apache-2.0 (but of course it's copyleft) -- most notably it only affects contributors (which includes people who distribution verbatim and modified works). Using the program doesn't add any patent requirements (other than the Apache-2.0-like patent revocation system). 4. The "tivoisation" clauses that people like to make a fuss over actually only state two key things. First, it states that no software licensed under GPLv3 "shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure" -- which effectively means that the DMCA cannot apply to GPLv3 licensed programs (this is good for both users and companies). Second, one of the requirements is that you must distribute tools and instructions (this includes things like keys if appropriate) for changing the software on a system. This second requirement may seem onerous, but it actually doesn't require you to ship the hardware signing keys if you have a way to disable the hardware signing (or a way to replace the signing keys without needing the original keys). This is also good for companies that buy hardware that has GPLv3 software (but it does place some additional burden on companies that ship said software). While (4) might cause some angst, there are other very useful features of the GPLv3 that you seem to be ignoring. Not to mention you didn't actually specify what the issue you're talking about is. I presume it's got to do with the "tivoisation" clause, but that clause is not the most important part of GPLv3. Not to mention that, depending who you ask, there is a "tivoisation" clause in GPLv2. In particular, GPLv2 states that "for an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" (emphasis mine). Personally "the scripts used to control [...] installation" could include instructions on how to install an executable on a piece of hardware you've sold me (if that hardware has DRM, you have to tell me how to install the executable despite the DRM). This is still not entirely agreed upon in in the GPL conformance community (the SFC has not explicitly stated which way they go on this one either).
andrepd 9y ago
Absolutely. That's why GPL is so important (in software). A more permissive license paradoxically results in less freedom since it does not protect those four freedoms from being denied.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Except there isn't really anything paradoxical about it. A law that allows murder is more permissive and obviously does not increase freedom. It's simply a fallacy to think that not putting any limits on what any individual can do results in maximal freedom for society at large.

jordigh 9y ago

> RMS really saw this coming a long time ago And one of the reasons for GPLv3: the anti-tivoisation clause. You should be allowed to install modified software in your own devices. People have misconstrued anti-tivoisation that to mean that Apple can't keep malware out of your iPhone by key signatures, but that's not what it means, nor was it the primary reason why Apple wanted to prevent their users from installing unsigned software. It's about giving control to users and giving them both the key and the lock and letting them decide what goes on their own machines. Trying to paternalistically tell users what they can and cannot install has culminated in a method of control for repairs and obsolescence.

abritinthebay 9y ago
That isn't what it means but the problem with it is that it has extra knock on effects. There is a reason GPL v2 was incredibly popular and GPLv3 basically killed all momentum and it wasn't because GPLv3 was better. At least not from a business point of view. And that, at its core, is the issue. In a world where the only licence is GPLv3... it works. But in a world where people can choose other licenses - it won't be the choice of most. It's a shame because I love the GPLv2 but I'll never use GPLv3 and honestly it's just less hassle to chose MIT for most companies.
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  Why is the "business point of view" relevant here? It's the business point of view that got us DRM in the first place.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Because in the real world you get your products from said businesses. If your favorite vendors don't like the license, they wont adopt it, period.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      The same business that will happily take anything that is MIT licensed, to reduce development costs by getting software at $0 and never contributing anything back. When they do, is only a few bread crumbs to the villagers, while keeping the crown jewels behind their gates. But hey, "they are contributing back see how nice they are!". I used to be a big (L)GPL zealot during the 90's, nowadays I just reverted back to using commercial software, because the community just doesn't care about companies taking their work away.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >The same business that will happily take anything that is MIT licensed, to reduce development costs by getting software at $0 and never contributing anything back. Isn't that part of what people chose MIT for? To allow businesses to adopt their project without having to "contribute anything back"? >I used to be a big (L)GPL zealot during the 90's, nowadays I just reverted back to using commercial software, because the community just doesn't care about companies taking their work away. Isn't that their own decision? Whether to worry about or not? People chose MIT because they are OK with this scenario.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        Yeah, but then they aren't entitled to complain that cannot get access to the fork used by company XYZ, that the *BSDs get less love than GNU/Linux, embedded OEMs don't publish their clang forks, Android devices are locked down to a specific version,.....
        _ph_ 9y ago
        Right, and at least I am not aware of complaints like such. My experience rather is, that any larger customisations of open source software are usually propagated back to the project for the simple reason of saving the hassle of maintaining a fork of that software.
- badsectoracula 9y ago
  You should stop looking things only from "a business point of view", often what is best for business is bad for the users - even if they don't understand it themselves to care enough about (at which point what the business is doing is little different from taking advantage of their users' lack of knowledge and should be shamed instead of used as an example for others to mimic).
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Thinking like yours gave us GPLv3 and less subsequent adoption of copyleft licenses. Which means you’ve got a lovely and ideologically pure hill to die on, but die you will. In the real world code is useless without being adopted. The largest adopters? Businesses. They don’t want to use GPLv3? Less developers likely to use it (market forces I’m afraid). So no, I’ll keep paying attention to what works and not be beholden to the idealistic notions of the FSF, thanks.
    - flukus 9y ago
      What business stay away from GPL3 that were OK with GPL2? The only one I can think of is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the wider OSS community anyway. Most companies are still using linux with gnu tools so the version 3 hasn't affected them at all.
      - alacombe 9y ago
        Back in 2008, a large "feature-phone" chip maker I used to work for decided the GPLv3 was a total no-go while the GPLv2 was kinda reluctantly accepted.
      - _ph_ 9y ago
        Linux is still GPL2 and some companies decided to stay with the GPL2-licensed versions of those GNU tools.
      - maccard 9y ago
        > is apple and they're the type of free loaders that don't benefit the wider OSS community anyway. Forgetting about a little project called clang? Swift is open source, WebKit is open source (with a tarnished history). I’m not claiming Apple are perfect, but saying they’re free loaders who don’t benefit is a flat out lie.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  GPL3 is bad because Linus poopooed it? He had no choice, and V3 addresses real weaknesses with V2.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    I never mentioned Linus. I don’t really care what he thinks. It’s true it addresses weaknesses (more oversights) but it does it in the most overreaching and aggressive way. Which is a problem for adoption.
- cyphar 9y ago
  GPLv3 has many, many improvements over GPLv2. In fact, there are several improvements that should make it _more_ favourable to companies: 1. The terms of section 8 (termination) are much "nicer" to people who make mistakes and infringe on the terms of the GPLv3. GPLv2 was very hard-line, and in principle the revocation of rights was immediate. This is something that companies should _like_ about GPLv3. 2. The text is written to be far similar to a legal document (GPLv2 uses non-standard formatting especially with regards to how definitions of terms are done), which makes it easier for lawyers to understand and argue about the license. 3. It is compatible with Apache-2.0 now, by having a patent protection clause that is similar to Apache-2.0 (but of course it's copyleft) -- most notably it only affects contributors (which includes people who distribution verbatim and modified works). Using the program doesn't add any patent requirements (other than the Apache-2.0-like patent revocation system). 4. The "tivoisation" clauses that people like to make a fuss over actually only state two key things. First, it states that no software licensed under GPLv3 "shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure" -- which effectively means that the DMCA cannot apply to GPLv3 licensed programs (this is good for both users and companies). Second, one of the requirements is that you must distribute tools and instructions (this includes things like keys if appropriate) for changing the software on a system. This second requirement may seem onerous, but it actually doesn't require you to ship the hardware signing keys if you have a way to disable the hardware signing (or a way to replace the signing keys without needing the original keys). This is also good for companies that buy hardware that has GPLv3 software (but it does place some additional burden on companies that ship said software). While (4) might cause some angst, there are other very useful features of the GPLv3 that you seem to be ignoring. Not to mention you didn't actually specify what the issue you're talking about is. I presume it's got to do with the "tivoisation" clause, but that clause is not the most important part of GPLv3. Not to mention that, depending who you ask, there is a "tivoisation" clause in GPLv2. In particular, GPLv2 states that "for an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" (emphasis mine). Personally "the scripts used to control [...] installation" could include instructions on how to install an executable on a piece of hardware you've sold me (if that hardware has DRM, you have to tell me how to install the executable despite the DRM). This is still not entirely agreed upon in in the GPL conformance community (the SFC has not explicitly stated which way they go on this one either).

andrepd 9y ago

Absolutely. That's why GPL is so important (in software). A more permissive license paradoxically results in less freedom since it does not protect those four freedoms from being denied.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Except there isn't really anything paradoxical about it. A law that allows murder is more permissive and obviously does not increase freedom. It's simply a fallacy to think that not putting any limits on what any individual can do results in maximal freedom for society at large.