No subject

not a ulterior motive but the outcome of a perceived threat to a
business model.  It was this business model that I wanted to get a clear
picture of.  It seems I cannot get any more informatino here.

> yes, there are cases of ingrained perceptions about how to accomplish 
> something and GPLv3 blocks those methods.  but again, it is *your* choice to 
> attempt to educate people here, it is not the automatic burden of people to 
> champion the GNU cause for you.

What kind of axe do you have to grind here?  We (as a project) were
asked about our stance to move to GPLv3 which is a perfectly good
question to pose.  All I want to do is collect facts - your allegation
that I want other people to carry a "burden" shows me that this way will
bear no more fruit.

>> > they arent generally trying to lock out people who just want to toy,
>> > they're targeting people who want to clone their hardware or
>> > functionality to create knockoffs or they're trying to guarantee lock
>> > down so they can get certified (like medical devices).
>>
>> How does GPLv3 vs. GPLv2 touch the "we will get cloned" question?  Maybe
>> I do not see the obvious here, but sourcecode to binaries under either
>> license must be available, so what's the difference?
>
> if you dont have the decryption keys, you cant read the end program.  having 
> access to the u-boot source doesnt matter.

Having access to the physical device will.  How long do you think will
it take to get broken into?  Unfortunately physics do not follow wishes
of companies as seen over and over in the past.

>> On the other hand I also do believe that for a project which is here
>> simply because of the benefits of the GPL, we should spend some time
>> thinking this through and then base the decision of the project on a
>> sound basis.  Handwaving arguments do not help much here, so thanks for
>> your input.
>
> except that licensing choice is just as much practical considerations (can XYZ 
> be done with the GPLv3) as it is personal choice.  it dictates how we choose 
> to *let* other people utilize the code.

Licensing ceases to be a personal choice when it is a community project.

> i personally dont have a problem with people locking their hardware.
> that is their choice and the GPLv2 allows them that freedom.

You have a strange definition of freedom - for you it is limited to the
provider of the devices not to the users of the devices.  I guess this
is what this all boils down to.

> hell, i wouldnt have a problem with a public domain u-boot.  people
> dont use GPLv3 because it is a "superior" license from a technical
> perspective, they use it because they want to *restrict* how others
> use their code.

Are you standing on your head typing this?  You actually want to allow
a few people to _massively_ restrict all the rest.  I cannot follow
here.

Cheers
  Detlev

-- 
Algebraists do it in a ring, in fields, in groups.
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de