3 ms·

With the GPLv3/AGPLv3 versions, it is still OK to break the proprietary parts. For the LGPL in general, you have to be able to re-link, so that isn't OK I think

by pabs3 2y ago

With the GPLv3/AGPLv3 versions, it is still OK to break the proprietary parts. For the LGPL in general, you have to be able to re-link, so that isn't OK I think. https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

tsimionescu 2y ago
This is still a matter of interpretation. Here is an exchange that this same author has had with Stallman about Stallman's opinion on the GPLv3 (and his intention) [0]: > Specifically, I asked him on 2012-05-05: > > [so], these words in GPLv3: “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.” mean that the proprietary software that is not a combined work with the GPLv3'd work must also function? > Stallman replied on 2012-05-06 with: > > Absolutely. And I wrote it specifically to do that! I don't think this has ever been litigated, so we don't know what a judge and jury would find, but I suspect that if they found Bradley Kuhn is right, there may be a GPLv4 that is more explicit about requiring the device to keep functioning as it was, not just as a dev board as he calls it in these slides. And that GPLv4 would apply automatically to lots of GPL software going forward (because of the "or later" clause that many projects are using). I also think he is explicitly contradicting his earlier article to some extent. He also mentions in that that the whole original purpose of the GPL, as also told by Stallman, was to be able to fox your own printer by patching its code when you find a bug in it. It's clear that "turn the printer into a dev board by blowing a fuse" doesn't achieve this original goal at least - whether it achieves the license terms as written is more debatable. [0] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...

by pabs3 2y ago

tsimionescu 2y ago

This is still a matter of interpretation. Here is an exchange that this same author has had with Stallman about Stallman's opinion on the GPLv3 (and his intention) [0]: > Specifically, I asked him on 2012-05-05: > > [so], these words in GPLv3: “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.” mean that the proprietary software that is not a combined work with the GPLv3'd work must also function? > Stallman replied on 2012-05-06 with: > > Absolutely. And I wrote it specifically to do that! I don't think this has ever been litigated, so we don't know what a judge and jury would find, but I suspect that if they found Bradley Kuhn is right, there may be a GPLv4 that is more explicit about requiring the device to keep functioning as it was, not just as a dev board as he calls it in these slides. And that GPLv4 would apply automatically to lots of GPL software going forward (because of the "or later" clause that many projects are using). I also think he is explicitly contradicting his earlier article to some extent. He also mentions in that that the whole original purpose of the GPL, as also told by Stallman, was to be able to fox your own printer by patching its code when you find a bug in it. It's clear that "turn the printer into a dev board by blowing a fuse" doesn't achieve this original goal at least - whether it achieves the license terms as written is more debatable. [0] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...