[Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+

[Martin Langhoff]

Hi Bernie,

thanks for the thoughtful response. The "use by employees" area is
something I need to study further, as I suspect is more complex than
what you're describing.

On the tivoization part...

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 03:38 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>> What is done with said code was never the business of GPLv2. GPLv3
>> starts getting its nose into the "how it is used" side.
> Wait a moment: neither the GPLv2 nor the GPLv3 has ever put any
> limitation on the way you can *use* the software. One could use GPLv3
> software to murder people or to implement DRM.

Except that antitivoization clauses provide for unlocking the DRM so
you actually can't. That is squarely the intention of v3.

So then you write

> It's not happening right now, but one day someone could get the idea to
> take the wicked business model of ebook readers into the world of
> education. By going with the GPLv3, we'll prevent this sort of things
> from ever happening in the future.

Hey! You can't have it both ways. Either you are dictating how it is
used, or you are not.

Someone could have the wicked idea of using Sugar to teach a whole lot
of things that could go very much against what OLPC is all about.

Should we start revising GPLv3 to restrict a whole lot of things that
are contrary to OLPC and SugarLabs' goals? Racism, sexism, hate,
xenophobia, partisan rewriting of history... the list is long and
sadly colourful. Mind if I say that DRM is very *very* far down that
particular list? :-)

Or should we stay clear of that mess, and keep the license apolitical
and focused on sharing the source?

It is clear that FSF does not like DRM, and I respect that position.
However, it is a topic of *how* the software is used, and that is an
essentially political topic.

I'll comment below on a few side-topics --
...

> There's no explicit prohibition to use GPLv3 software on a locked-down
> platform, as long as users are given the ability to install modified
> versions the GPLv3 code (and not the entire OS). Of course, if the GPLv3
> software happened to be the kernel itself, jail-breaking would become
> trivial.

Agreed, and this is very relevant to Sugar.

>> In what *planet* do you live? Honestly, GPLv3 is controversial amongst
>> anyone whose work is possibly tivoized. It was so all through the
>> drafting process.
> Ok, that's true, but it shouldn't be controversial among *us*.

I am surprised you are surprised. Not everyone thinks like the FSF,
even if we have good friends there :-)

GPLv2 has been _such a successful license_ in its
share-and-share-alike side that people use it not because they
squarely believe in FSF's goals, but because they believe in much
humbler goals, like "keep the source open by sharing it".

There are lots of uses of software that aren't aligned to our dreams
and goals. But the license is very much the wrong place to try to
advance them.

cheers,



m
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff