4 ms·

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.

by quux 6y ago

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.

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.

by 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.