[ye-olde-sysrq]

Sure - I think there's a hair to be split here where we could argue that weaponizing anti-circumvention logic in GPLv2 is generally in the spirit of the GPL as a whole, but then also say they in GPLv3 we decided to remove it because while it's in the spirit, it's too dangerous, and net-better for user freedom if using GPLv3 software doesn't carry the risk of accidentally tripping up anti-circumvention laws.

[Qwertious]

I get the impression that GPLv2 is (perhaps unintentionally) in the spirit of open source, whereas GPLv3 is in the spirit of Free Software. Thus Linus's famous "I just want the code" rant.

[pxc]

GPLv2 was created by and for the free software movement. The notion that it is somehow more aligned with a depoliticized, whitewashed ancestor of that movement than it is with the real deal is absurd.

[Qwertious]

It's absurd, but true. I do think it's unintentional, but due to historical reasons GPLv2 doesn't prevent tivoization, which is more aligned with open source than with free software.

Again, I'm not discussing what the intentions were, nor what the practical effects used to be 20 years ago, I'm referring to it's position today.

Suppose a hypothetical that GPLv2 never existed and that the GPLv3 was written in 1990, then someone came along today and wrote a variant of GPLv3 that specifically permitted tivoization and firmware blobs; surely such a license would be seen as moving from open-source to free software.

[brokenmachine]

Link to Linus' rant please?

[Qwertious]

https://www.theregister.com/2006/03/10/torvalds_gpl_drm/