Re: Concerning uniliateral decision making with respect to the coreutils package

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:16:45 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<1882819.TLkxdtWsSY@soren-desktop>
On Tuesday, July 14, 2026 8:23:50 AM Mountain Standard Time Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> writes:
> > However, if there is some reason why a developer should never use the 
GPLv3,
> > please put it forward.
> 
> I don't think there are reasons for never <anything> :-)
> 
> But if you want reasons why a developer should consider other licences
> in specific contexts, then the FSF lists a few good ones along with
> their recommendations:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

I see you included the exact same link I included in the part you snipped.  
Needless to say, I find no problems with these recommendations.  That is why I 
mentioned the link myself.

> And there are other reasons too: https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289

If you would really like to make the Tivoization argument, I would recommend 
you do so with your own words, and I would be happy to debate it with you.  
Regarding Linus, he says:

“Rms calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I 
find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because *Tivo 
never did anything wrong*, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact 
that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content 
producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware.

“The kernel license covers the kernel. *It does not cover boot loaders and 
hardware*, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware 
can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only 
a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care.”

Notice above where I have highlighted how Linux came to this conclusion 
because he doesn’t care if hardware is free (as in freedom).

> We don't have to agree that any of those reasons are valid or anything.
> But I hope we can agree that the people behind those concerns can't be
> classified as "fundamentally disagreeing with the principles of the
> DFSG"?

I think Tivo *did* do something wrong.  Their use of DRM to prevent users from 
installing new software on their hardware is fundamentally in conflict with 
the principles of the DFSG.  Specifically, it is in conflict with #3, derived 
works, because Tivo was using DRM to prevent derived works from being 
installed on the hardware.

Now the DFSG was written for sofware before the free hardware movement 
existed, and, as such, does not specifically mention hardware.  That is why I 
very carefully said arguments against the GPLv3 was in conflict with the 
*principles* of the DFSG and not with the DFSG itself.  However, if you extend 
the *principles* of the DFSG to hardware as well as software, I think it is 
completely accurate to say that anyone who thinks it is generally bad for a 
developer to license their software under the GPLv3 (as was stated by Ansgar 
earlier in this thread) fundamentally disagrees with the *principles* of the 
DFSG.

Ultimately, there is no free software if all our hardware becomes completely 
locked down.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)