6 ms·

I am not familiar with the Tivoization issue, but v3 solves one showstopper problem with v2: v2 has no real patent release. To me this puts v2 in the same categ

I am not familiar with the Tivoization issue, but v3 solves one showstopper problem with v2: v2 has no real patent release. To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects. Linux is chock full of potential patent release deathtraps: that it is still using v2 is kinda scary.

adamrezich 6y ago
I wasn't familiar with "Tivoization" either but I found that there's a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
- warmwaffles 6y ago
  I just looked up the history of it. Interesting characterization.
- bombcar 6y ago
  The "medical devices" loophole in GPLv3 makes the whole thing kinda insane http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq Look at that table!
  - MauranKilom 6y ago
    I don't understand how this table relates to medical devices? Could you explain?
    - bombcar 6y ago
      The table is a second thing - Section 6 is the medical devices loophole; I was just amazed by seeing that (unrelated) table. Certainly simple! /s
- m463 6y ago
  This is basically why apple stopped shipping GPL software when GPL3 came along. Apple takes away the ability to run the software, then sells it back to you.
xahrepap 6y ago
I like Linus's generalization of (in my words): - If you like the idea of sharing code and want people to share code back. Use GPL - If you like the idea of sharing code, and merely want credit for it. Use BSD. Your point about patent is an import part of his generalization that is not addressed. GPLv3 solves the first bucket WRT patents. Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue? EDIT: formatting and clarifying words.
- gnomewascool 6y ago
  > Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue? Apache 2.0 License.
  - xahrepap 6y ago
    Good to know. Thanks!
  - ksec 6y ago
    And BSD + Patents
  - Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago
    I think this is a common misconception. The Apache 2.0 license isn't all that similar to simpler licenses BSD/MIT/X11. Apache 2.0 has some clauses which (most people tend to ignore and which) make it somewhat incompatible with modern open-source fork and pull request workflows. In particular 4.b) > You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; For the most part, people just throw their name in the file, in an attempt to "meet" this requirement without massacring the file header/notice. However, if the Apache 2 license is taken at face value, when you fork and modify a file, you have to mark it as such. Then when you submit back, the project (in adherence with the Apache 2.0 license) has to retain this notice. Technically the project may even then need to add their own notice to indicate they modified the file since you did. Clearly, that's not tenable, so most (small) projects just offer leeway. Larger projects instead have contributor agreements (AOSP and alike).
rockdoe 6y ago
To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects. Isn't BSD widely accepted to have an implicit patent license? e.g.: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335 https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335
- SeanLuke 6y ago
  No, nor MIT/X11. There is debate as to whether its wording might provide some protection through accident of history, but that's not how the law should work: a proper license is unambiguous.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    In common law countries, it's nearly impossible to write a legal document that's completely unambiguous. Even if it's unambiguous at the time the document is written, the underlying law could change at any time. Of course that could happen in civil law countries too, but it'd be from a statute being changed.
    - SeanLuke 6y ago
      Whataboutism. There's a massive difference between "no license is 100% unambiguous" and "BSD is maximally ambiguous".
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
Tivoization is when a computer comes with GPL code, but refuses to run it if there have been any modifications to the code. Tivo used to ship GPL'd software, and provide the source, but they had some kind of lock that checked the authenticity of the code being run. So it defeated the entire purpose of the GPL, which is so the end users have control of their own computers.
- dTal 6y ago
  ...which was of largely academic interest when it was DVRs, but is now a pants-on-fire emergency with the "advent" of Linux-powered pocket spy devices masquerading as telephones - with huge consequences for ordinary, non-nerd people. The stakes for software freedom have never been higher.
- quux 6y ago
  Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2. From the preamble: Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. This jives well with Linus's intention of "I give you software to do whatever you want with, and if you make improvements you have to give them back"
  - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
    isnt this why they made gplv3 then
    - quux 6y ago
      It is. My point is that saying Tivoization went against "the entire purpose of the GPL" (which would include v2) isn't backed up by the text of v2 itself.
      - klyrs 6y ago
dathinab 6y ago
Yes but: - There is no legal viable way to upgrade to v3, even if the "or later" clause would be there it would have been a legal disaster. - It's also makes it much more viable to upstream drivers in Linux - Let's be honest the patent system is by now utter garbage failing the one fundamental thing it was invented for: Driving/Improving Innovation. The only reason it didn't fall on our head yet is because many companies simple don't enforce patents. Also you could argue it already fell on our head in some areas due to innovation having slowed to a crawl, while certain competitions (mostly in Asia) are not affected as they ignore patents. I mean sharing and cloning software (between companies!) is what enabled us to have massive innovations (through some maybe stupid) in software space. Non of this would have been possible with enforced software patents.
notaplumber 6y ago
Because software patents should not be legal, and are not enforceable in many sane jurisdictions, e.g: Europe. I'd much rather stick with "archaic" but understandable licenses like BSD, over verbose licenses that intertwine US Patent Law with Copyright law, such as Apache 2 or GPLv3.
- atq2119 6y ago
  Apache 2 is a terrible license for another reason anyway: it requires modified versions to carry notice of the modification on every modified source file. This means that tons of people who fork Apache 2 projects on GitHub are in violation of the license without even being aware of it.

adamrezich 6y ago

I wasn't familiar with "Tivoization" either but I found that there's a Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

warmwaffles 6y ago
I just looked up the history of it. Interesting characterization.
bombcar 6y ago
The "medical devices" loophole in GPLv3 makes the whole thing kinda insane http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq Look at that table!
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  I don't understand how this table relates to medical devices? Could you explain?
  - bombcar 6y ago
    The table is a second thing - Section 6 is the medical devices loophole; I was just amazed by seeing that (unrelated) table. Certainly simple! /s
m463 6y ago
This is basically why apple stopped shipping GPL software when GPL3 came along. Apple takes away the ability to run the software, then sells it back to you.

xahrepap 6y ago

I like Linus's generalization of (in my words): - If you like the idea of sharing code and want people to share code back. Use GPL - If you like the idea of sharing code, and merely want credit for it. Use BSD. Your point about patent is an import part of his generalization that is not addressed. GPLv3 solves the first bucket WRT patents. Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue? EDIT: formatting and clarifying words.

gnomewascool 6y ago
> Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue? Apache 2.0 License.
- xahrepap 6y ago
  Good to know. Thanks!
- ksec 6y ago
  And BSD + Patents
- Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago
  I think this is a common misconception. The Apache 2.0 license isn't all that similar to simpler licenses BSD/MIT/X11. Apache 2.0 has some clauses which (most people tend to ignore and which) make it somewhat incompatible with modern open-source fork and pull request workflows. In particular 4.b) > You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; For the most part, people just throw their name in the file, in an attempt to "meet" this requirement without massacring the file header/notice. However, if the Apache 2 license is taken at face value, when you fork and modify a file, you have to mark it as such. Then when you submit back, the project (in adherence with the Apache 2.0 license) has to retain this notice. Technically the project may even then need to add their own notice to indicate they modified the file since you did. Clearly, that's not tenable, so most (small) projects just offer leeway. Larger projects instead have contributor agreements (AOSP and alike).

rockdoe 6y ago

To me this puts v2 in the same category as MIT/X11 and BSD: archaic licenses that no one should ever use except for the most trivial of projects. Isn't BSD widely accepted to have an implicit patent license? e.g.: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335 https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335

SeanLuke 6y ago
No, nor MIT/X11. There is debate as to whether its wording might provide some protection through accident of history, but that's not how the law should work: a proper license is unambiguous.
- xxpor 6y ago
  In common law countries, it's nearly impossible to write a legal document that's completely unambiguous. Even if it's unambiguous at the time the document is written, the underlying law could change at any time. Of course that could happen in civil law countries too, but it'd be from a statute being changed.
  - SeanLuke 6y ago
    Whataboutism. There's a massive difference between "no license is 100% unambiguous" and "BSD is maximally ambiguous".

dec0dedab0de 6y ago

Tivoization is when a computer comes with GPL code, but refuses to run it if there have been any modifications to the code. Tivo used to ship GPL'd software, and provide the source, but they had some kind of lock that checked the authenticity of the code being run. So it defeated the entire purpose of the GPL, which is so the end users have control of their own computers.

dTal 6y ago
...which was of largely academic interest when it was DVRs, but is now a pants-on-fire emergency with the "advent" of Linux-powered pocket spy devices masquerading as telephones - with huge consequences for ordinary, non-nerd people. The stakes for software freedom have never been higher.
quux 6y ago
Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2. From the preamble: Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. This jives well with Linus's intention of "I give you software to do whatever you want with, and if you make improvements you have to give them back"
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  isnt this why they made gplv3 then
  - quux 6y ago
    It is. My point is that saying Tivoization went against "the entire purpose of the GPL" (which would include v2) isn't backed up by the text of v2 itself.
    - klyrs 6y ago

dathinab 6y ago

Yes but: - There is no legal viable way to upgrade to v3, even if the "or later" clause would be there it would have been a legal disaster. - It's also makes it much more viable to upstream drivers in Linux - Let's be honest the patent system is by now utter garbage failing the one fundamental thing it was invented for: Driving/Improving Innovation. The only reason it didn't fall on our head yet is because many companies simple don't enforce patents. Also you could argue it already fell on our head in some areas due to innovation having slowed to a crawl, while certain competitions (mostly in Asia) are not affected as they ignore patents. I mean sharing and cloning software (between companies!) is what enabled us to have massive innovations (through some maybe stupid) in software space. Non of this would have been possible with enforced software patents.

notaplumber 6y ago

Because software patents should not be legal, and are not enforceable in many sane jurisdictions, e.g: Europe. I'd much rather stick with "archaic" but understandable licenses like BSD, over verbose licenses that intertwine US Patent Law with Copyright law, such as Apache 2 or GPLv3.

atq2119 6y ago
Apache 2 is a terrible license for another reason anyway: it requires modified versions to carry notice of the modification on every modified source file. This means that tons of people who fork Apache 2 projects on GitHub are in violation of the license without even being aware of it.