On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 16:46 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote: > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block > tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain > GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down > if > it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the > software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The > manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free > software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. see > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html > > If you want to migrate to GPL-3, the most important question to solve will be: > is it possible to get an agreement to do that migration from every single > programmer involved in gentoo?
Like Ciaran said, the foundation holds the copyright, so it can re-license if it needs/wants to. The tivoization clause is certainly one of those subjects that can rapidly spiral downwards on this list, because it is largely a religious issue. In Tivo's case, they made the software freely available, but locked down their hardware. So, software wise, they did not affect freedom; hardware wise, it's their design and specs, they're under no obligations. Either way, I'm not sure how Gentoo is affected by the tivoization clause. If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to move to it, then we can start talking about that. Thanks, Seemant
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
