Richard Fontana wrote at 00:44 (EDT) yesterday:
Thus, copyleft-next has no anti-Tivoization provisions
While I disagree with the term "anti-Tiviozation" (I use the term
"anti-lock-down"), I nevertheless think this is a terrible mistake.
This change is effectively abandoning the idea that copyleft should
defend users' freedoms to install modified versions.
We've entered an era where lock-down is common. Android device users
must check lists to verify they can install a modified firmware: some
allow it, some don't, because the Apache License doesn't defend their
freedom to install modified versions, and GPLv2 on Linux has been
(perhaps incorrectly) read to not defend it (although prominent members
of the Linux community such as Alan Cox strongly disagree). Indeed, if
Alan is right, you're making copyleft-next even weaker than defending
this essential right of users than GPLv2 does.
Yet, with respect to GPLv3, it has been my own intuition that few
projects consciously choosing that license do so because of the
anti-Tivoization provisions.
You say you have this intuition, but you've given no evidence. This is
akin to George W. Bush saying that he made key policy decisions based on
"his gut". Intuition is useful to generate serendipity, but making a
policy decision based on empty intuition is a disaster. Generally, this
decision is a disaster for copyleft if copyleft-next is ever adopted.
I do not have the sense that the inclusion of these provisions in
GPLv3 has had the effect of increasing users' freedom to modify
software in consumer devices they own.
Lock-down is now common, and is accomplished in four ways: (a) the
reading of GPLv2 to say that it doesn't defend users' freedoms to
install modified versions if cryptography is used for lock-down, (b)
blatant GPLv2 violations, ignoring the requirement to include "scripts
to control compilation and installation of the executable", and (c)
avoiding copyleft software altogether, (d) a concerted campaign to
change industry practices to make lock-down mandatory on ARM, and very
difficult to avoid on x86.
In this climate, it's clearer than ever that all copyleft should cover
this issue. Consider this: would you make an argument that because many
companies contribute to Apache-licensed software that the need for the
"share and share alike" clause of copyleft should be abandoned? The
situation is at least analogous here, but is in fact, much worse,
because *most* electronic devices today are locked down and the number
grows every year.
I'm open to being convinced that this deletion should be
reverted, but
if no one successfully convinces me, it is likely to stay deleted.
I've proposed this merge request below to put it in a *stronger* version
of the GPLv3 anti-lock-down provision that I drafted last night. I
propose a stricter one because (a) GPLv3's version was probably a
compromise that wasn't worth making, because the people who insisted on
the compromise avoid GPLv3'd software anyway, and (b) I think
copyleft-next should start from something extremely strong on this issue
and decide to compromise, rather than compromise away users' rights to
install modified versions from the start.
Indeed, I'm not going to issue an ultimatum like Fontana's above (i.e.,
"you must convince me otherwise that the provision shouldn't be so
strong"). What I'm saying is we should *start* with the strictest
possible anti-lock-down provision for copyleft-next, *then* see if there
is sufficient consensus under the rule formerly know as the Harvey
Birdman Rule to see if that clause should be watered down.
IMO, anything that is called copyleft in the modern climate of lock-down
must defend users' freedom to install modified versions of software.
Part of what influences me is the availability of outbound (A)GPLv3
compatibility.
I think I can get away with saying this to Fontana because he's my
friend: IMO, your thinking on this is wrong-headed. Copyleft-next, if
it matters, should be the right type of copyleft for the next
generation. The next generation is all about installing modified
versions of software on electronic gadgets.
those who care strongly about these provisions will be able to
incorporate copyleft-next code in GPLv3-licensed works.
I'm sorry to hear that you believe so few people care about the right to
install modified versions. Even in the Linux community, there is huge
disagreement on this issue (Ted on one side, Alan on the other). I'm
aghast that you now argue this is akin to the contractors thing!
Would you have preferred the OpenWRT and SamyGo communities to just "not
exist"? Without requirements to ensure installation of modified
versions, they wouldn't.
Anyway, the merge request is:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/10
Patch from that merge request is also attached.
--
-- bkuhn