Comments on: GPLv3 beta 2 http://www.hardings.cl/blog/2006/07/28/gplv3-beta-2/ Ideas, opinions and references relating IT, FLOSS and Security (among others). Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:51:40 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Carlos http://www.hardings.cl/blog/2006/07/28/gplv3-beta-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1808 Carlos Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:12:18 +0000 http://www.hardings.cl/blog/2006/07/28/gplv3-beta-2/#comment-1808 Jens, I believe you might be right. I'm just not convinced your example is an apt one. But anyways... I was reading this today, and I think you might find it interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060727140038810&title=No+need+to+be+sorry...&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=466084#c466105 Linus explains his take on the GPLv3. Jens,

I believe you might be right. I’m just not convinced your example is an apt one. But anyways…

I was reading this today, and I think you might find it interesting:

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060727140038810&title=No+need+to+be+sorry…&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=466084#c466105

Linus explains his take on the GPLv3.

]]> By: Jens Hardings http://www.hardings.cl/blog/2006/07/28/gplv3-beta-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1749 Jens Hardings Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:02:25 +0000 http://www.hardings.cl/blog/2006/07/28/gplv3-beta-2/#comment-1749 Actually, in the case I posted, it should not be necessary to have a signed binary to install and use GIMP on Windows. It would work unsigned and even access most images without any change of the current behaviour. But there could be some images that are set to be read only by "trusted" applications, and those applications have to follow some kind of DRM scheme. So, Windows would not have to choose between being able to run F/OSS or implementing DRM. The only affected companies would be those that intend to distribute F/OSS. The point is that software licenses is the wrong place to fight DRM. It doesn't work as intended (DRM will not cease to exist anytime soon because of that), and the collateral damage that will affect innocent users is greater than any positive impact. Actually, in the case I posted, it should not be necessary to have a signed binary to install and use GIMP on Windows. It would work unsigned and even access most images without any change of the current behaviour. But there could be some images that are set to be read only by “trusted” applications, and those applications have to follow some kind of DRM scheme. So, Windows would not have to choose between being able to run F/OSS or implementing DRM. The only affected companies would be those that intend to distribute F/OSS.

The point is that software licenses is the wrong place to fight DRM. It doesn’t work as intended (DRM will not cease to exist anytime soon because of that), and the collateral damage that will affect innocent users is greater than any positive impact.

]]> By: Carlos http://www.hardings.cl/blog/2006/07/28/gplv3-beta-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1725 Carlos Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:52:02 +0000 http://www.hardings.cl/blog/2006/07/28/gplv3-beta-2/#comment-1725 Well, if MS were to set up that a system, it would pretty much kill the use of F/OSS anyways, right? I mean, even without GPLv3, if you need a signed binary to use the GIMP on Windows, your argument still stands: there's no way I can get the key, unless I guess I get a commercial entity (or MS itself) with access to the key to sign it. We've come ot the point where GPLv2 doesn't really protect some uses of software anymore. What's the point of being able to tinker with the software if your modified versions won't run? However, I do agree with you we might not be going in the right direction with the GPLv3, but I'm not sure if accepting DRM is acceptable. Sure, there might consequences in the sense that companies might have to choose between DRM and F/OSS, but that might better than F/OSS effectively giving up user's freedom, which in the long run would more harm. Well, if MS were to set up that a system, it would pretty much kill the use of F/OSS anyways, right? I mean, even without GPLv3, if you need a signed binary to use the GIMP on Windows, your argument still stands: there’s no way I can get the key, unless I guess I get a commercial entity (or MS itself) with access to the key to sign it.

We’ve come ot the point where GPLv2 doesn’t really protect some uses of software anymore. What’s the point of being able to tinker with the software if your modified versions won’t run? However, I do agree with you we might not be going in the right direction with the GPLv3, but I’m not sure if accepting DRM is acceptable. Sure, there might consequences in the sense that companies might have to choose between DRM and F/OSS, but that might better than F/OSS effectively giving up user’s freedom, which in the long run would more harm.

]]>