Posted by: Anonymous
on April 16, 2008 04:47 PM
This "anti-tivoization" clause does not appear to be necessary to meet the referenced definition of "free software". The source code is the software, full stop. When I release a program under GPL(v2, the only version I currently will consider) I am granting to the user a right to use, distribute or modify that same code, for use in whatever way they want, as long as they honor the right of others to do the same with any derived works they may create.
I do not tell them what hardware they may and may not run that software on.
If I write a library that I use in an iphone application ( assuming that the NDA issue is not involved ), and release that library under GPL(v2), there is nothing preventing another from taking that library and using it in another system, or as the basis for another program. (Given the viral aspect, I may need to use the LGPL, but that is not th issue).
It is a conceit of the GPLV3 that somehow a software license can dictate the use of my hardware. This is a dangerous route since it diminishes the emphasis on the code as the software.