4 ms·

Deepest differences between GPLv3 and v2 are: * Antitivoization clause: it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required. This guarant

Deepest differences between GPLv3 and v2 are: * Antitivoization clause: it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required. This guarantees freedom 0 (freedom to use the software) will not be circumvented and discourages vendors from shipping hardware that requires signed software. * Antipatent clause: The license is revoked from an attacker if patents are used to attack users of the software. These clauses maybe desired in some cases. Probably, a sensible direction could be to add flags to the GPLv2 to particularly enable these clauses. Somewhat similar to how it is done with CC licenses which may have BY, SA, or NC flags.

josephcsible 6y ago
> it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required It's a little bit more nuanced than this. It's okay to require signed code as long as the end user has control over which signing keys to trust (e.g., x86 Secure Boot, but not ARM Secure Boot). In particular, this means you don't have to choose between security and freedom - you can have both.
st_goliath 6y ago
Also an IMO important point: if a copyright holder notifies you of a violation, you have an explicit 30 day grace period to "cure" that. The GPLv2 instead terminates your license, requiring a reinstatement by the copyright holders.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  The GPLv2 “death penalty” is most likely unenforceable. The legal argument is that since the GPLv2 is a public offer that one can accept by complying with it's terms, regardless of the original holder's specific permissions, the offer is even extended to past violators, so all violators have to do to re-accept the offer is to simply come into terms with it again, but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated.
  - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated. Try telling the NFL that you're only violating their copyright during for duration of the super bowl. If you stop committing a crime, it's not like it never happened. Sure, most copyright holders of GPL licensed code won't sue you if you make an honest effort, but the 30 day clause just makes that official.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      That has nothing to do with licence termination, however, which is an entirely separate part from violation.
      - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
        Once the license is terminated you are in violation.
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        No, in reverse, once one violates, the licence is terminated. That has nothing to do with copyright per sē, and is simply a provision of the GPL, and thus has nothing to do with the Superbowl. The GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that.
        dec0dedab0de 6y ago
        The GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that. We might be arguing semantics here. I am trying to convey the idea that the rights holder can sue for damages after the duration of the violation, even if they can only sue for damages that took place during the violation. That is, once you are in compliance with the license you don't retroactively have a license for the time it was revoked.

josephcsible 6y ago

> it bars its use in software that will only run if signatures are required It's a little bit more nuanced than this. It's okay to require signed code as long as the end user has control over which signing keys to trust (e.g., x86 Secure Boot, but not ARM Secure Boot). In particular, this means you don't have to choose between security and freedom - you can have both.

st_goliath 6y ago

Also an IMO important point: if a copyright holder notifies you of a violation, you have an explicit 30 day grace period to "cure" that. The GPLv2 instead terminates your license, requiring a reinstatement by the copyright holders.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
The GPLv2 “death penalty” is most likely unenforceable. The legal argument is that since the GPLv2 is a public offer that one can accept by complying with it's terms, regardless of the original holder's specific permissions, the offer is even extended to past violators, so all violators have to do to re-accept the offer is to simply come into terms with it again, but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  but for the duration that they are out of terms, the offer is terminated. Try telling the NFL that you're only violating their copyright during for duration of the super bowl. If you stop committing a crime, it's not like it never happened. Sure, most copyright holders of GPL licensed code won't sue you if you make an honest effort, but the 30 day clause just makes that official.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    That has nothing to do with licence termination, however, which is an entirely separate part from violation.
    - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
      Once the license is terminated you are in violation.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        No, in reverse, once one violates, the licence is terminated. That has nothing to do with copyright per sē, and is simply a provision of the GPL, and thus has nothing to do with the Superbowl. The GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that.
        dec0dedab0de 6y ago
        The GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that. We might be arguing semantics here. I am trying to convey the idea that the rights holder can sue for damages after the duration of the violation, even if they can only sue for damages that took place during the violation. That is, once you are in compliance with the license you don't retroactively have a license for the time it was revoked.