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