7 ms·

I don't personally care it's GPLv3. I know given the way I'd use it there's no actual risk, or if I did modify it there'd be no reason not to contribute back. I

by xxpor 6y ago

I don't personally care it's GPLv3. I know given the way I'd use it there's no actual risk, or if I did modify it there'd be no reason not to contribute back. I do care about getting fired for violating company policy. GPLv2 can be approved fairly easily. GPLv3 is a much tougher sell. For example, GCC is fine because there's really no alternative (or there wasn't before clang had full compatibility).

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Why would GPL 2 vs 3 matter? Is the company doing hardware appliances or something?
- monocasa 6y ago
  Its probably the patent grant that has their lawyers squeamish.
- usr1106 6y ago
  Many corporations accept using GPLv2 code to some extent, while GPLv3 is just a red flag. Tivoization is one problem. If you have GPLv3 in your (embedded) product, you must provide tools to the customer to reflash it. Many corporations don't want that, and in cases where type appovals are required it might be illegal. Think of a car owner reprogramming the engine control unit or the brakes. That's probably all not very applicable to gdb, but corporate policies might not allow such a nuanced perspective.
  - bonzini 6y ago
    The ECU would definitely constitute mere aggregation with respect to e.g. the in-car entertainment system. Also, reprogramming the ECU is already possible, and it's also not illegal to do it. It may very well void your warranty and it might be illegal to use the car on public roads after having reprogrammed the ECU, but neither of those two things are incompatible with the GPL.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > and it might be illegal to use the car on public roads after having reprogrammed the ECU, but neither of those two things are incompatible with the GPL. Actually I think that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government (enforcing additional restrictions on the use of the software), although the government is generally not the one distributing the code (and also good luck holding them accountable even if they were).
      - singron 6y ago
        You can't violate the GPL if you aren't a party to the license (i.e. if you aren't copying copyrighted works). I don't know if it's a GPLv3 violation to distribute software in hardware that the user can technically buy not legally modify. The license just says this: > The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        Right, that probably should have been: > > that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government [if the government were the ones distributing it] [...] It would be nice to close this loophole (prevent or at least disincentivise the goverment from making such laws), but it's not clear how that could be accomplished.

by xxpor 6y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

Why would GPL 2 vs 3 matter? Is the company doing hardware appliances or something?

monocasa 6y ago
Its probably the patent grant that has their lawyers squeamish.
usr1106 6y ago
Many corporations accept using GPLv2 code to some extent, while GPLv3 is just a red flag. Tivoization is one problem. If you have GPLv3 in your (embedded) product, you must provide tools to the customer to reflash it. Many corporations don't want that, and in cases where type appovals are required it might be illegal. Think of a car owner reprogramming the engine control unit or the brakes. That's probably all not very applicable to gdb, but corporate policies might not allow such a nuanced perspective.
- bonzini 6y ago
  The ECU would definitely constitute mere aggregation with respect to e.g. the in-car entertainment system. Also, reprogramming the ECU is already possible, and it's also not illegal to do it. It may very well void your warranty and it might be illegal to use the car on public roads after having reprogrammed the ECU, but neither of those two things are incompatible with the GPL.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > and it might be illegal to use the car on public roads after having reprogrammed the ECU, but neither of those two things are incompatible with the GPL. Actually I think that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government (enforcing additional restrictions on the use of the software), although the government is generally not the one distributing the code (and also good luck holding them accountable even if they were).
    - singron 6y ago
      You can't violate the GPL if you aren't a party to the license (i.e. if you aren't copying copyrighted works). I don't know if it's a GPLv3 violation to distribute software in hardware that the user can technically buy not legally modify. The license just says this: > The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        Right, that probably should have been: > > that would constitute a GPL violation on the part of the government [if the government were the ones distributing it] [...] It would be nice to close this loophole (prevent or at least disincentivise the goverment from making such laws), but it's not clear how that could be accomplished.