[Dnsmasq-discuss] Re: GPL v3

[Sean Dague]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:59:10PM -0700, Paul Chambers wrote:
> Now, I'm all for the switch to GPLv3 only for dnsmasq.  The only
> argument I've seen here against it is a rather specious "My company has
> forbidden use of GPLv3 in our codebase" with strong implication "because
> we intend to TIVOize".
> 
> The companies concerned (e.g. TiVo and others) are trying to build cool
> innovative products without having to turn over their firstborn to
> Microsoft. The second problem is that the cooler products require the
> co-operation of one or more other (unenlightened) industry, be it
> broadcasters, cellular carriers, or the like. They have some pretty
> stiff requirements of device manufacturers that are not negotiable. You
> either play by their rules, or not at all.
>  
> Carriers are extremely protective of their infrastructure, and are
> extremely sensitive to any 'modification' of a device's behavior that
> might disturb the smooth running of that infrastucture. They see any
> 'user modification' of devices using their infrastructure as a potential
> source of network disruption at worst, and inefficient consumption of a
> scarse resource at best. That's the thinking that drives every major
> carrier to insist on doing their own 4-6 month certification cycles on
> products that have already been through certification for compliance
> with the cellular technology standards.

Fwiw, this is specifically accounted for in gpl v3 under section 6.

"Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself
materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or
violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network."

While there is plenty in v3 to raise an eye brow about, I think a lot of
people who have opinions either way at this point haven't actually
bothered to read either license in depth.  My usual test case about this
was to bring up that you must provide build scripts for your source in
gpl v2.  If someone was caught unawares by that, I realized they hadn't
read the license. :)

Back to the subject at hand, dnsmasq's is Simon's, and he can license it
any way he wants.  It seems to me the only substantive changes to
dnsmasq from v2 -> v3 would be the patent clauses (as it doesn't do
crypto or drm, wouldn't be part of anti circumvention systems, and it
isn't a library linked into other things, so most other new v3 things
just don't apply).  That seems like a good change for the project.

	 -Sean

-- 
__________________________________________________________________

Sean Dague                                       Mid-Hudson Valley
sean at dague dot net                            Linux Users Group
http://dague.net                                 http://mhvlug.org

There is no silver bullet.  Plus, werewolves make better neighbors
than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down.
__________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20071020/5d8a84a2/attachment.pgp