Richard Fontana wrote on 2 August:
Deletion of dl-supp
Yet, with respect to GPLv3, it has been my own intuition that few
projects consciously choosing that license do so because of the
anti-Tivoization provisions. I do not have the sense that the
inclusion of these provisions in GPLv3 has had the effect of
increasing users' freedom to modify software in consumer devices they
own. To the contrary, it appears if anything to have motivated
risk-averse companies to avoid use of GPLv3-licensed software.
I find this argument specious and it has a "history repeating itself"
quality. I can imagine a BSD developer, in the early 1990s, saying that
"risk-averse companies" are "avoiding GCC" because this copyleft
is too dangerous, and there is less freedom because some people who
would use GCC if it weren't copyleft would be doing so.
I think nearly everyone agrees (except, perhaps, for the person who is
most directly responsible for the error) that the communication between
the GPLv3 drafting committee and the Linux developers was completely
botched. I regularly deliver an apology directly from RMS to every
Linux developer I meet. RMS told me explicitly: "Please tell the Linux
developers I'm sorry and that my intent was to take very seriously their
feedback in a friendly way and if we failed to do that, we made an
That error being made, we now live with the consequences. But to allow
that error to propagate into a decision that no anti-lock-down provision
should even be *available* to copyleft-next users is completely
unreasonable in my view.
I believe we're going to continue to fight about the question of whether
anti-lock-down is a primary feature of copyleft-next. However, it seems
to me a needlessly contentious act to delete the *supplement*. If the
supplement structure of copyleft-next exists, then the two supplements
that must be officially recommended are the (a) network services clause
and (b) anti-lock-down clause.
I therefore insist that the anti-lock-down supplement be reverted.
Please accept this merge request: