>Can you explain it a bit more?
I'm no legal expert however stalman tried to force something like a auto update for the license from the start only a legal auto update.
Meaning if you would license your code with GPL3 and GPL4 comes around it legally is under GPL4 now.
You can see how stupid and dangerous this is.
I can not find linus talking about this, however I remember it.
GPL3 is ....
Did you read a GPL2 license VS a GPL3 license?
GPL2 is normally written.
GPL3 reads like a raving lunatic that has schizophrenia.
I don't know if GPL3 is even enforceable in court.
I think the main split is over tivo, from what I understand its this:
tivo corporation uses GPL2 software (copy and past from some project)
tivo corporation needs to give back all the changes they make and all the code.
tivo also makes a hardware thing that they put this software on and sell the thing.
The hardware is some cheap bullshit even inferior to raspberry pi.
The hardware thing has some blocks in it that prevent anyone from installing and running code on it except the MD5 (or whatever) checked thing(bios?) that the tivo corporation makes.
Anyon can run the tivo software on your own hardware like the raspberry pi.
Now do you see anything wrong with this?
I see it like this tivo gives away the code and sells a hardware device to boomers and idiots. Tivo makes money on these hardware devices. And tivo gives money and donates to this project. Its basically a idiot boomer tax. Everyone can take the same code and run it on a raspberry pi only the tivo hardware thing is locked down.
Now stalman threw a shitfest that "you can not do this !". And invented GPL3.
Here is my take:
1) I'm ok with GPL2 because libre software gets donations from corporations who exploit stupid idiots and boomers
2) I don't get it. is GPL3 even something legally binding? Who is liable if someone makes a hardware that only runs some specific linux distro that is MD5 checked by the hardwares bios?
This is not a hardware license, no one is manufacturing hardware here and licensing it. If I write GPL3 code and someone decides to build a lock down hardware that only runs my code am I in trouble here? Even if I never made this hardware??? Is the guy who made the hardware? How he did not sign any license here, no software license...
Can this thing even go to court? Will it not be struck down?
So many questions.
>Here we give your version 3 and then we try to sneak in these new rules and try to force everybody to upgrade. That was the part I disliked. And the FSF did some really sneaky stuff. Downright immoral in my opinion.
>I am thinking tivoization isn't necessarily something that you should strive for. But in my world view it's your decision if you make hardware that blocks down the software. That's your decision as a hardware maker. That has no impact on my decision as a software maker to give you the software.