[chii]

> others attempts to re-write the GPL

what does this mean? Is it a rewrite if the interpretation changes? How does one infer what the person granting this license "really meant"?

I think it's wrong not to get lawyers involved, because the laymen gets legalese interpretation wrong all the time (and it's an easy mistake to make - "doesn't match what developers understood the GPLv2 to mean at all").

GPL enforcement should be scary - banking on the folks who owns the copyright not enforcing it should not be possible. Selective enforcement should not be a thing either. This can only be possible if an overarching entity with funding does the enforcement.

[onphonenow]

Sure, the GPL deal was pretty simple. You can use the code, but if you change it, you need to make the code available with changes also under the GPL. This drove a fair bit of collaboration.

Each developer however could then make whatever they wanted with this code, and the GPL didn't control how you used the code in your project.

So you could make a car, and GPL software based control module could have a rev limiter in it. Others could also build cars using your code, BUT there was no requirement that USERS of your product be able to modify your product to for example get around the rev limiter or whatever.

This was battled out in part via the Tivo case, but was also just the normal readers understanding of the GPL.

This gave rise to the GPLv3 - which has the anti-tivoization clause in it. THAT version does say that you have to provide unlock codes etc etc. This ended up NOT being popular with the folks actually writing code.

What's happened though is that EFF / SFC have started to try and falsely claim that the GPLv2 is also like the GPLv3 - which is ironic because people DIDN'T want the GPLv3 over these issues in part.

https://jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/download/149/269 for an article and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU for Linus's take on the GPLv3 in general.

The latest tactic, because they can't get developers to go down the (A)GPLv3 path is to try and create a right that would allow them to sue everyone as activists even though they didn't write any code themselves. That would then let them put their own interpretations of all of this. I think the SFC is pushing that but I don't follow closely enough.

What is remarkable is just how few developers have gotten on board with this group.

[pabs3]

It is pretty clear from the history, that GPLv2 always required the ability of users to update the installed software.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/

[onphonenow]

Um, that's the SFC version of GPLv2 intent. The actual folks using GPLv2 have a different view. This actually illustrates the issue that is going on with their attempt to claim GPL is not a copyright license (it has always been considered to be a copyright license) and their desire to change the intent. When you start having to twist and turn words and ideas this way you are in lawyer lala land.

"I give you source code, you give me your changes back; we’re even. … That’s my take on GPL version 2 and it’s that simple. … Version 3 extended that in ways that I personally am really uncomfortable with. Namely I give you source code, that means if you use that source code, you can’t use it on your device unless you follow my rules. And to me that’s a violation of everything version 2 stood for. And I understand why the FSF did it, because I know what the FSF wants, but to me it’s not the same license at all. So I was very upset, and made it very clear, and this was months before version 3 was actually published."

Please stop lying about what is "clear". The actual folks using these licenses disagree.

Here is Stallman on GPLv3

"There are several primary areas where version 3 is different from version 2. One is in regard to [T]ivoisation.

...

The Tivo includes some GPL-covered software. …[Y]ou can get the source code for that, as required by the GPL … and once you get the source code, you can modify it, and there are ways to install the modified software in your Tivo and if you do that, it won't run, period. Because, it does a check sum of the software and it verifies that it's a version from them and if it's your version, it won't run at all. So this is what we are forbidding, with the text we have written for GPL version three. It says that the source code they must give you includes whatever signature keys, or codes that are necessary to make your modified version run."

Who is Stallman you ask? The key guy behind GPLv2 (not the SFC BTW).

[pabs3]

Nothing in GPLv2 requires giving changes back, only giving changes forward to the downstream users is required, not back upstream to the original developers. Giving code to users is pretty pointless if they can't install and run it, which is why both GPLv2 and GPLv3 require this. It is the culture of working upstream that leads to code flowing back to the original developers (obviously this is a very important thing to do, but it isn't required by the license). So I think Linus might need to write a new license to achieve what he actually wants from GPLv2. Note that any such license would discriminate against some classes of people who can't or mustn't communicate externally (those on a desert island, those in a totalitarian regime etc), so probably wouldn't be classed as "open source".

I expect that Stallman simply did not know the details of what Tivo was doing, or was worried about what they might do in the future. Their actions didn't include preventing you from running modified GPLed software (although that is a scary thing that is definitely possible and currently likely present in modern devices). They only prevented you from running their proprietary software on top of modified GPLed software. Stallman wanted to prevent that scenario with GPLv3, but the wording that finally made it into GPLv3 still allows what Tivo was doing.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...