Hacker News Reader

Comment by mitchty | Hacker News Reader

So I exaggerated myself in the "crazy territory" comment, regardless its basically how I feel about GPLv3.

So what FUD specifically is there about GPLv3 then? How is the anti-tivoization clause helpful to companies then? It honestly reads to me as a doubling down on copyleft.

I've talked to a few lawyers and they basically consider GPLv3 a contract that isn't worth bothering with.

Which basically reads to me GPL as generally used code will eventually go by the wayside. If legal people won't buy off on it there is no chance I could convince managers to use it. Net result: less GPL used, user/overall freedom reduced. Dunno I don't see the v3 license as being a good thing. Maybe it plugged holes, but it ensured the ship will hit an iceberg in the future.

View on HN

> I've talked to a few lawyers and they basically > consider GPLv3 a contract that isn't worth bothering with.

Presumably they gave you a reason, along with a sizeable bill?

You seem to have misunderstood the intent of the GNU GPL.

The intent is not to help companies.

The intent is to ensure that users (i.e. us) have continued access to Free Software.

How does the 'anti-tivoization' clause help in that? Imaging you had a device: a TV, a phone, whatever.

It is discovered that the device is actually spying on you; if the device used [1] GNU GPLv3 software you would be entitled to both the source and the keys.

You could then correct this 'mis-feature' and stop the device from spying on you.

If the device used software only under the GNU GPLv2 then you would be entitled to only the source. If the device rejected your attempt to upload new software then too bad.

[1]: A vast over-simplfication, but I hope my point is illustrated.

> I've talked to a few lawyers and they basically consider GPLv3 a contract that isn't worth bothering with.

That isn't a reason. Lawyers don't have magical powers to reason about the business implications of legal documents, the interesting thing they can tell you is how the law will treat the words, e.g. if some part of the document would not be enforceable or would do something you wouldn't have expected from reading it. It would actually be interesting if they said something like that, because that would be a reason. Ask them for a reason. Otherwise it's just FUD.

It is quite obvious that if your intent was to produce a tivoized product then GPLv3 is not your friend, because that was the point. But most people don't want to do that, so why should they care?

Generally the lawyers say the need to divulge keys in hardware is the biggest problem. That's a clear problem for a hardware company trying to secure things.

I guess that depends what you mean by "secure things." If you mean tivoize then no kidding. But what kind of actual security requires the device owner to be unconditionally locked out of the device? It seems to be working as intended.

Backplanes generally that communicate state would be one example. It is mostly things that users shouldn't care about and can easily break things if they try poking about.

I still don't understand why it would be necessary to unconditionally lock the users out. Nobody says you have to encourage them to do it, but why get in their way? If people want to shoot themselves in the foot, it's their foot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com