[ninkendo]

> Why would a toaster oven (or indeed, just a pop-up toaster) that instead used electronic controls need the bar for safety to be placed at a different height?

It wouldn't. It's a thought experiment. I even said:

> Would the toaster be a better product if you could change the software? Of course.

The point is, nobody should be compelling you to make your products hackable. If you don't want to, that's your prerogative.

The problem is, before GPLv3 existed, the authors that picked GPLv2 never expressed that they wanted their software to be part of some anti-locked-bootloader manifesto... they picked it because GPLv2 represents a pretty straightforward "you can have the source so long as you keep it open for any changes you make" license. That's what the GPL was. But this whole "Or any future version" clause gave FSF carte blanche to just alter the deal and suddenly make it so anyone can fork a project and make it GPLv3. I can perfectly understand why this would make people (including Linus) very mad.

[kelnos]

If an author wants, they can leave out the "or any future version" verbiage. If the author does not, then they are explicitly saying that they want their software to be part of whatever future manifesto the FSF puts forth, including the anti-locked-bootloader manifesto present in the GPLv3.

And that's why Torvalds left out "or any future version" when licensing Linux. So I'm not sure why he's "very mad" (I doubt he actually is?); his software remains on GPLv2 like he wanted.

> The point is, nobody should be compelling you to make your products hackable.

If you want to use my GPLv3 software on your product, then yes, I am requiring that you make it hackable. If you don't want to do that, tough shit. Either do so, or freeload off someone else's software.

[pabs3]

GPLv2 mandates user-modifiable devices too, according to Conservancy at least.

[immibis]

Also according to at least one German court! (AVM Vs I don't remember. The lawsuit was about home wireless routers.)

[pabs3]

I want the law to compel you to make your products hackable. The GPL is often irrelevant for devices, the law is what matters.

[ssl-3]

You used the thought experiment as the foundation for the anti-anti-tivoization sentiment expressed. If the thought experiment is false, then the sentiment which might rest upon it is without basis.

> The point is, nobody should be compelling you to make your products hackable. If you don't want to, that's your prerogative.

I agree.

Nobody is compelled to use GPLv3 code in the appliances that they want locked-down for whatever reasons (whether good or bad) they may wish to do that. There's other routes (including writing it themselves).

They may see a sea of beautiful GPLv3 code and wish they could use it in any way they desire, like a child may walk into a candy store and wish to have all of it for free, but the world isn't like that.

We're all free to wish for whatever we want, but that doesn't mean that we're going to get it.

> But this whole "Or any future version" clause gave FSF carte blanche to just alter the deal and suddenly make it so anyone can fork a project and make it GPLv3.

This "Or any future version" part isn't part of the GPL -- of any version.

Let us review GPL v1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.en.html

> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

The GPL itself does not in any way mandate licensing any code under future versions. An author can elect to allow it -- or not.

If they specify GPL 2, then they get GPL 2. Not 3. Not 4. Only 2.

Other versions of the GPL are ~the same in this way. (You know where to find them, right? They're easy reads.)

[immibis]

The law compelling you to make your products hackable is called "right to repair". Without this law, if my toaster breaks, my only option is to buy a new toaster. But if I'm allowed to change the toaster, I can fix the toaster.

Products have worked this way since forever. Only since modern microprocessors and cryptography have evil companies been able to deliberately add roadblocks that are impossible to overcome (without replacing so much hardware that you've made a new toaster from scratch) in order to maximize revenue. This is predatory and should be illegal. The only reason I can see that you'd support this, is it you work for a company that makes a lot of money selling new toasters to replace broken ones, and if this is true, your company deserves to be shut down by the government.