Von Anonymous Coward am Fr, 14. September 2007 um 03:25 #
Zunächst einmal ist freie Software ein Begriff, der von der Free Software Foundation geprägt und definiert wurde. Damit ist jede Lizenz, die die vier Freiheiten (das Programm verwenden wie man lustig ist, studieren und modifizieren, Kopien verteilen, veränderte Versionen verteilen) bereitstellt, per Definition frei, und das trifft auf die GPLv3 zu.
Was die umstrittenen Paragraphen gegen Tivoisierung angeht, so habe ich dazu ein längeres Zitat von RMS, welches ziemlich einleuchtend erklärt, wieso Paragraphen gegen ebendiese nur die logische Fortführung des Hintergrundgedankens der GPL sind:
"DRM Developers want the program to restrict the user. They want to modify the program to make it more limited and then distribute that to you so that you will be restricted in what you can to. They'll be allowed to do that but they're often not satisfied with that, because if you could then fairly easily extend the program again to make it do whatever they want to stop you from doing, that will not achieve their goal, which is to shackle you. So, they look for ways they can effectively deny you the freedom to extend the program again. In the past, when we developed GPL versions 1 and 2, we knew of two methods they might use: one method is through restrictive license terms, and the other method is by not having you let the source code. Well, in GPL versions 1 and 2, we blocked the methods that we knew about. We said they can't add any such license terms and they have to give you the source code. If we had known about Tivoization then, we would have blocked it then, but nobody, as far as I know, had ever tried it, at least I'd never heard of it. But now they have the other method of Tivoization, which is to design a machine for the program to run in, and design the machine so that if you extend the program and put back the features they didn't want you to have, then the program won't run anymore. So this is what we are trying to block now, we're trying to block this third method of stopping you from changing the program, just as we've always blocked the other two methods."
Mit ähnlichen Argumentationsketten kann man auch die Paragraphen gegen Patente u. ä. begründen. Fakt ist jedenfalls, dass hinter der GPLv3 exakt das gleiche Gedankengut steht, wie hinter der GPLv2. Daher musst Du, wenn Du die GPLv3 ablehnst, auch die GPLv2 ablehnen, da sie lediglich das gleiche Konzept weniger konsequent umsetzt.
Was die umstrittenen Paragraphen gegen Tivoisierung angeht, so habe ich dazu ein längeres Zitat von RMS, welches ziemlich einleuchtend erklärt, wieso Paragraphen gegen ebendiese nur die logische Fortführung des Hintergrundgedankens der GPL sind:
"DRM Developers want the program to restrict the user. They want to modify the program to make it more limited and then distribute that to you so that you will be restricted in what you can to. They'll be allowed to do that but they're often not satisfied with that, because if you could then fairly easily extend the program again to make it do whatever they want to stop you from doing, that will not achieve their goal, which is to shackle you. So, they look for ways they can effectively deny you the freedom to extend the program again. In the past, when we developed GPL versions 1 and 2, we knew of two methods they might use: one method is through restrictive license terms, and the other method is by not having you let the source code. Well, in GPL versions 1 and 2, we blocked the methods that we knew about. We said they can't add any such license terms and they have to give you the source code. If we had known about Tivoization then, we would have blocked it then, but nobody, as far as I know, had ever tried it, at least I'd never heard of it. But now they have the other method of Tivoization, which is to design a machine for the program to run in, and design the machine so that if you extend the program and put back the features they didn't want you to have, then the program won't run anymore. So this is what we are trying to block now, we're trying to block this third method of stopping you from changing the program, just as we've always blocked the other two methods."
Mit ähnlichen Argumentationsketten kann man auch die Paragraphen gegen Patente u. ä. begründen. Fakt ist jedenfalls, dass hinter der GPLv3 exakt das gleiche Gedankengut steht, wie hinter der GPLv2. Daher musst Du, wenn Du die GPLv3 ablehnst, auch die GPLv2 ablehnen, da sie lediglich das gleiche Konzept weniger konsequent umsetzt.