begin oe_protect.scr
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> In message <34101562.ic93OmtN6s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | This document is a position statement on the GNU General Public License
>> | version 3 (in its current Draft 2 form) and its surrounding process
>> | issued by some of the Maintainers of the Linux Kernel speaking purely in
>> | their
>> | role as kernel maintainers. In no regard should any opinion expressed
>> | herein be construed to represent the views of any entities employing or
>> | being associated with any of the authors.
>> `----
>>
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/
>
> I have some issues with this:
>
> The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails
> the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no
> substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to
> solve.
>
> On the contrary: software patents and the "Tivoization" issue are very
> much "substantial and identified" problems, as is of course the
> proliferation of open-source licences.
The whole angle for claiming that GPLv3 is not required is based on
deliberately ignoring the tiovisation issue, which leads one to
naturally ignore the drm issue.
>
> While we find the use of DRM by media companies in their attempts to
> reach into user owned devices to control content deeply disturbing, our
> belief in the essential freedoms of section 3 forbids us from ever
> accepting any licence which contains end use restrictions. The existence
> of DRM abuse is no excuse for curtailing freedoms.
>
> Which is precisely what GPL v3 is trying to achieve: preventing the
> curtailing of freedoms from DRM abuse.
One of the greatest dangers must be that people will find their own
solutions to DRM, so in the longer run, if GPLv3 issues are not
resolved, the GPL could become irrelevant.
>
> As we stated in section 2 one of the serious issues in Open Source is
> too many licences. The additional restrictions section in the current
> draft makes GPLv3 a pick and choose soup of possible restrictions which
> is going to be a nightmare for our distributions to sort out legally and
> get right.
>
> I don't see why they have to. The additional options are there for those who
> want them: if you don't feel the need for them, or don't want to know about
> them, then don't use them.
This argument reduces to "choice is bad", which I do not subscribe to.
>
> Further, the additional restrictions create the possibility of
> fragmentation of the licensing universes among particular chosen
> restrictions, which then become difficult to combine and distribute
> (because of the need for keeping track of the separate restrictions).
>
> On the contrary, those additional restrictions were carefully chosen
> _precisely_ because they will remain compatible with the GPL.
Quite. There's a lack of vision about these parts!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2
|
|
