Mike Frysinger wrote: > > Obviously the second item here will become void if vendor lockout of > > updates becomes common. So what will be left of the essential freedoms? > > I can study the code, I can modify it, but I am not allowed to run it. > > Excellent. > > and this is why i dislike the GPLv3. the GPLv2 was all about the source, so > the conversation between developers and everyone else was "you can take my > source and modify it all you want, but i want to see the changes". sounds > fair. > > GPLv3 (ignoring the fix for the loophole with web applications) adds > *nothing* > to this premise. instead, it's used as an ideological club such that the > conversation is now "i have all these ideas about how software should and > shouldnt be utilized, so if you want to use my software, you too now have to > subscribe to my way of thinking and you have to show me the changes". > > so what does moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3 gain us in terms of protections ? > nothing. it does however allow us to restrict the people who want to use u- > boot to using it in only ways we've "blessed". that's plain wrong in my eyes > and none of our business in the first place.
Wow, I was just about to compose a mail summarizing my point of view when I realized you had done it already :-) While I think fighting for extensible and "hackable" hardware is good, I think a software license is the wrong way to go about it. Let's stick to the proven model of GPLv2: You can use my software if I get to use your improvements. Trying to impose restrictions on this model in order to fight a different battle against restricted hardware will only make the software less attractive and hurt us in the long run. > > I think it is not a coincidence that devices which can be updated with > > arbitrary firmware sells pretty good in the meantime. Who buys routers > > capable of running OpenWRT because of their original firmware? > > then let your wallet/politicians do the talking. i certainly do -- i avoid > purchasing any music/games encumbered with DRM, or companies that employ such > methods. but i'm above going around and forcing people to think the way i do > with licenses. Exactly. Hardware manufacturers already seem to recognize that open hardware designs lead to better sales, and that has _nothing_ to do with GPLv3 (though it may or may not have something to do with the Defective By Design campaign.) These are only my personal opinions; I'm not speaking for Atmel as a whole. Haavard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
