6 ms·

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

by 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
    I agree. GPLv2 was about keeping the software free. The tivoization issue addresses a (relatively) newer issue, to protect full control over hardware and software. Which is, IMO, not within the scope of a software license -- it took many of us by surprise that the "or later" clause was used to change the fundamental meaning of the license in that manner. Some of us were always suspicious before the change -- "what if RMS sells out and v(n+1) grants non-reciprocity to his employer" type of crap -- but we went with v2+ because it was popular at the time. I don't think I've seen "v3 or later", probably because we've been burned already.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    Eh... it seems more like “the authors of GPLv2 didn’t even think of Tivoization when it was written”.... I think the assumption was that if you have access to the code and the rights to change it, that meant you could be in control of your software. They didn’t think of the possibility that hardware would restrict what could be run. I don’t think it is that much of a stretch to say preventing people from running modified versions of the software went against the goals of GPLv2 to allow users the ability to “change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs” Not being able to run the software you change certainly means you can’t use it.
  - atq2119 6y ago
    It's very clearly backed up by the history of how the GPL came to be in the first place. There was a printer driver that RMS wanted to change but couldn't. If the system he was working with had had code signing for printer drivers and refused to run with his modifications because of it, we'd have had the TiVo clause in the very first version of the GPL already.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
It wasn't an explicitly stated goal, but thats exactly what those freedoms were meant to do. Atleast in regards to the software being provided under the license. They just didn't foresee a future where computers would refuse to run a modified version of the code they came with. Remember, the impetus for GNU was a closed source printer driver that rms wanted to modify, and was not allowed to. 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" Except the GPL does not require you give any improvements back. It only requires that you give the same freedoms to whoever you give the improved software to. That is, the end users. There are plenty of enterprise "appliances" that come with modified GPL code that is only given to the companies that pay for these computers. That is perfectly within the spirit of the gpl, because it's goal is to give the end users freedom. edit: What else would be the point of "that you can change the software" without having a means to run it?
- quux 6y ago
  What else would be the point of "that you can change the software" without having a means to run it? Porting the software to new hardware?
blihp 6y ago
Of course it was, implicitly. Go back an read Stallman's writings from the time. It was all about giving end users control. The end users of the early GNU software were mostly programmers so providing them with source code was providing them with control.
tremon 6y ago
Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2. But it is. Let's quote another paragraph of the preamble too, shall we? if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. This surely says, in spirit, that if you as manufacturer have the right to deploy this software on certain hardware, that the recipient must have the same rights? 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" This, on the other hand, is not a stated goal of GPLv2. Your obligation, as a software distributor, is only downstream (your recipients/customers), not upstream (your suppliers).
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2. It is the goal of Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Free software licenses are one of the means to that end. Free software started in universities decades ago. The software was written for Unix computers, many years before things like trusted computing. The GPLv2 reflects this environment: it takes hardware freedom for granted and focuses entirely on software freedom. Tivoization was an unforeseen development.

by quux 6y ago

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
  I agree. GPLv2 was about keeping the software free. The tivoization issue addresses a (relatively) newer issue, to protect full control over hardware and software. Which is, IMO, not within the scope of a software license -- it took many of us by surprise that the "or later" clause was used to change the fundamental meaning of the license in that manner. Some of us were always suspicious before the change -- "what if RMS sells out and v(n+1) grants non-reciprocity to his employer" type of crap -- but we went with v2+ because it was popular at the time. I don't think I've seen "v3 or later", probably because we've been burned already.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Eh... it seems more like “the authors of GPLv2 didn’t even think of Tivoization when it was written”.... I think the assumption was that if you have access to the code and the rights to change it, that meant you could be in control of your software. They didn’t think of the possibility that hardware would restrict what could be run. I don’t think it is that much of a stretch to say preventing people from running modified versions of the software went against the goals of GPLv2 to allow users the ability to “change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs” Not being able to run the software you change certainly means you can’t use it.
- atq2119 6y ago
  It's very clearly backed up by the history of how the GPL came to be in the first place. There was a printer driver that RMS wanted to change but couldn't. If the system he was working with had had code signing for printer drivers and refused to run with his modifications because of it, we'd have had the TiVo clause in the very first version of the GPL already.

dec0dedab0de 6y ago

It wasn't an explicitly stated goal, but thats exactly what those freedoms were meant to do. Atleast in regards to the software being provided under the license. They just didn't foresee a future where computers would refuse to run a modified version of the code they came with. Remember, the impetus for GNU was a closed source printer driver that rms wanted to modify, and was not allowed to. 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" Except the GPL does not require you give any improvements back. It only requires that you give the same freedoms to whoever you give the improved software to. That is, the end users. There are plenty of enterprise "appliances" that come with modified GPL code that is only given to the companies that pay for these computers. That is perfectly within the spirit of the gpl, because it's goal is to give the end users freedom. edit: What else would be the point of "that you can change the software" without having a means to run it?

quux 6y ago
What else would be the point of "that you can change the software" without having a means to run it? Porting the software to new hardware?

blihp 6y ago

Of course it was, implicitly. Go back an read Stallman's writings from the time. It was all about giving end users control. The end users of the early GNU software were mostly programmers so providing them with source code was providing them with control.

tremon 6y ago

Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2. But it is. Let's quote another paragraph of the preamble too, shall we? if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. This surely says, in spirit, that if you as manufacturer have the right to deploy this software on certain hardware, that the recipient must have the same rights? 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" This, on the other hand, is not a stated goal of GPLv2. Your obligation, as a software distributor, is only downstream (your recipients/customers), not upstream (your suppliers).

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> Giving end users control of their own computers is not a stated goal of GPL 2. It is the goal of Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Free software licenses are one of the means to that end. Free software started in universities decades ago. The software was written for Unix computers, many years before things like trusted computing. The GPLv2 reflects this environment: it takes hardware freedom for granted and focuses entirely on software freedom. Tivoization was an unforeseen development.