[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd)

[Haavard Skinnemoen]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Obviously the second item here will become void if vendor lockout of
> > updates becomes common.  So what will be left of the essential freedoms?
> > I can study the code, I can modify it, but I am not allowed to run it.
> > Excellent.  
> 
> and this is why i dislike the GPLv3.  the GPLv2 was all about the source, so 
> the conversation between developers and everyone else was "you can take my 
> source and modify it all you want, but i want to see the changes".  sounds 
> fair.
> 
> GPLv3 (ignoring the fix for the loophole with web applications) adds *nothing* 
> to this premise.  instead, it's used as an ideological club such that the 
> conversation is now "i have all these ideas about how software should and 
> shouldnt be utilized, so if you want to use my software, you too now have to 
> subscribe to my way of thinking and you have to show me the changes".
> 
> so what does moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3 gain us in terms of protections ?  
> nothing.  it does however allow us to restrict the people who want to use u-
> boot to using it in only ways we've "blessed".  that's plain wrong in my eyes 
> and none of our business in the first place.

Wow, I was just about to compose a mail summarizing my point of view
when I realized you had done it already :-)

While I think fighting for extensible and "hackable" hardware is good,
I think a software license is the wrong way to go about it. Let's stick
to the proven model of GPLv2: You can use my software if I get to use
your improvements. Trying to impose restrictions on this model in order
to fight a different battle against restricted hardware will only make
the software less attractive and hurt us in the long run.

> > I think it is not a coincidence that devices which can be updated with
> > arbitrary firmware sells pretty good in the meantime.   Who buys routers
> > capable of running OpenWRT because of their original firmware?  
> 
> then let your wallet/politicians do the talking.  i certainly do -- i avoid 
> purchasing any music/games encumbered with DRM, or companies that employ such 
> methods.  but i'm above going around and forcing people to think the way i do 
> with licenses.

Exactly. Hardware manufacturers already seem to recognize that open
hardware designs lead to better sales, and that has _nothing_ to do
with GPLv3 (though it may or may not have something to do with the
Defective By Design campaign.)

These are only my personal opinions; I'm not speaking for Atmel as a
whole.

Haavard