Re: mea culpa on the meaning of Tivoization

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-19T06:11:31Z

On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> I haven't looked at it, in depth, today but one of the problems I
> saw was the apparent loopholes in the text. No specifics, but I
> remember thinking "a lawyer would have a field day with this -
> dozens of ways they could sidestep these issues"

*Pretty* *please* file comments about the apparent loopholes at
gplv3.fsf.org/comments

> What I was getting at, here, is that the GPLv3 isn't backwards
> compatible with GPLv2,

It couldn't possibly be. The whole point of upgrading the GPL is such
that it complies better with its spirit of defending the freedoms, so
as to keep free software free. This can only be accomplished with
additional restrictions that stop practices that deny users'
freedoms.

Relaxing the provisions, a necessary condition for compatibility,
wouldn't make for better defenses.

> because you aren't allowed to remove rights from the GPLv3. Remember,
> there are rights encoded in the GPLv3 that don't appear in v2.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rights" in the two sentences above.
You know you can grant additional permissions, so I assume that's not
what you mean, even more so because you *can* indeed take them out.
Is it "conditions", "restrictions" or some such, that in turn
translate into freedoms for downstream users, or is it about the
granted rights per se?

> In fact, if you want to use GPLv3 code in a GPLv2 project you have
> to use GPLv3. For some projects, like the Linux Kernel, the upgrade
> is impossible to accomplish.

Impossible is a bit too strong. I understand it would take a huge
amount of work though, so I sympathize with "it wouldn't be worth it",
even if, in my scale of moral values, I'd disagree.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}