Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3

[edgar . soldin]

On 15.04.2011 04:22, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 14 April 2011 19:07,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>> .. except you can, if it is a commercial rather than a consumer product:
>>>
>>>   >>> GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost
>>> exclusively meant for businesses and organizations.
>>> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html>
>>
>> could you point out the specific part of the gpl3 that defines this?
> 
> Sure, it's section 6 "Conveying non-source forms", right in the middle
> of that section.

Thanks .. you probably mean 

"A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling.  In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage.  For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product.  A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product."

I see the definition there, and I really am clueless why this restriction found 
it's way into the license. I can understand the following though

"... the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information.  But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM)."

but for the former I'll probably visit the fsf mailing list and ask for the 
reason for this. I don't see why anti-tivoization should be restricted to 
"consumer" products only.

>> concluding, even if this were true (probably is if stallman says so), a 
>> little bit of tivoization protection, is better than none.
>>
>> also we have not a lot of options here, only gpl2 or gpl3. relicensing to 
>> another license or even modifying either gpl would need all past 
>> contributors to agree. nobody could gather all of these.
> 
> If you want to use only GPL3 going forward, of course you can.  I have
> little if any code in duplicity itself so it's not up to me anyhow.  I
> just thought I'd mention it since the topic came up.
> 

still i am interested in your opinion. given my line of argumentation above. do 
you agree, or do you see arguments to stick with gpl2?

..thanks ede