3 ms·
GPLv2 was fine. AGPL is fine. V3 is incompatible with selling bootloader locked software stacks (pretty much all consumer hardware these days). Concretely, I
by hedora 2y ago
GPLv2 was fine. AGPL is fine.
V3 is incompatible with selling bootloader locked software stacks (pretty much all consumer hardware these days).
Concretely, I can’t do this local thing: Take GPLv3 software, build a board, link the software to vendor blob firmware (~ all current hardware requires this step), flash it to a ROM on the board and sell it to you with a copy of the GPLv3 software’s source code.
I can take the same vendor blob, add a TCP stack, and have your device shell into a copy of GPLv3 software with closed source modifications running in my data center.
This has massive negative consequences for users of GPLv3-reliant IoT crap and cloud services.
- rbanffy 2y ago> V3 is incompatible with selling bootloader locked software stacks (pretty much all consumer hardware these days). Which is great. It prevents enshitification of consumer devices.
- Dylan16807 2y agoIf you look just at consumer devices, it's great. But their argument is that blocking that loophole, while not blocking an even worse loophole, caused more harm than good. In other words we should have moved as much as possible directly to AGPL, and left the rest on GPLv2.