Re: OpenChain Webinar #11 - Open Source Issues Remediation + Community Bridge and SPDX Online Tools + CII Best Practices - Full Recording
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Well, there is this: “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.*”
I don’t think that’s what the author meant by the language you quote below about “consumer premises.” [I haven’t looked at the slides]
FWIW, the language above was adapted from the Magnuson-Moss warranty act from the USA: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2301
Andy Wilson and I did a preso, quite some time ago, about the Installation Information requirement and how one should think about compliance with it, which I have posted to my website for those who really want to delve into this little-remarked upon provision. Bradley Kuhn also did a preso about it for the Linux Foundation more recently: https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf directed to the automotive industry
From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Jeremiah C. Foster
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 10:11 AM
To: OpenChain Main <main@...>
Subject: Re: [openchain] OpenChain Webinar #11 – Open Source Issues Remediation + Community Bridge and SPDX Online Tools + CII Best Practices – Full Recording
Thanks Shane and everyone for the webinar. After reading the slides from the "Open Source Issues Remediation" I have a small nit to pick.
On slide 10 the author writes "the goal of the [GPL] v3 license is to prevent Tivoization". While that is clearly the goal of Section 6 of the GPL v3, that is not the goal of the entire license. The goal of the license, at least from what I understand from those who were involved in its creation, was to be more GPL-like. That means it is meant to be modified by the copyright holder just as source code licensed under the GPL v2 is meant to modified. This can create an extremely flexible license should the copyright holder need that. The GPLv3 also makes explicit some implicit elements of the previous versions of the GPL, like how to cure violations effectively and how software patents are treated. The overall goal was to make a better GPL license.
The author also writes "this [the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clause] is a problem, especially if the product is a consumer premises product." I would disagree with the idea that this is a "problem", the anti-tivoization clause actually is a solution to a host of problems where companies comply with the letter of the GPLv2 but prevent modification of a user's device through deliberate use of encryption or obfuscation. I don't think this comports with the spirit of the GPL family of licenses which is designed to give users control over the Free Software on their devices.
Lastly, there's no real notion of "premises" in the GPL though there certainly is a notion of a consumer product. A car might be an example of a consumer product that may contain GPLv3 source code but is not limited to "premises", thus the wording of the problem statement is somewhat misleading.
*** THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please do not reply, click on any links, or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know that the content is safe. ***