[ANNOUNCE] upstart 0.5.2 released

[Scott James Remnant]

On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:35 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Scott James Remnant<scott at netsplit.com> wrote:

> Providing a slightly different perspective, yes there are many groups
> that are doing this exact piece of work in the *BSD and Apple
> communities, mostly dealing with gcc -> clang, GNU grep -> BSD grep,
> etc.
> 
Sure, but those groups are also doing the exact same work as Upstart
does as well, launchd being the notable example.

> The point is that many people get tired of the GPLv3 license because
> apart from clarifying some areas that were ambiguous with GPLv2, it
> really puts teeth into who owns what and who can sue anyone for full
> disclosure of source (Sections 1 and 6 of the GPLv3), as well as the
> rhetoric is very anti-DRM and patent protection based (TiVO clause),
> as one can read in the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 preambles.
> 

> This is very difficult for some companies, like Cisco, where we use hardware
> protection to ensure that our software being executed is trusted and
> comes from Cisco, not a third party.
> 
This prevents people, who have legitimately obtained the source to your
Linux distribution, from modifying that source and running it on the
hardware they purchased.

Generally this is considered a bad thing.

Nothing stops you from signing for purposes of of bug triage ("not an
official Cisco release", etc.), it just prevents you from limiting the
hardware to only run signed software releases.  After all, what's the
point in having the source, and permission to modify it, if you can't
actually run the modified versions.

> Apple, similarly can't do this with their iPods, iPhones, etc because
> they need DRM functionality, as
> required by the movie and recording industries (-_-). I'm not saying I
> agree with the latter case, but Apple is just one group that doesn't
> have too much of a say in the matter because it would restrict revenue
> if they did.
> 
Nothing in GPLv3 prevents implementation of DRM technology, all it does
is require that you can not use the DCMA to attack people who obtain the
source and modify it.

> It becomes even more painful with libraries, like readline... which is
> GPLv2 / GPLv3.
> 
Actually, it's just as painful for LGPLv3 libraries.

LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2.

In order to link a GPLv2 app to an LGPLv3 library, the GPLv2 app must
actually be "GPLv2 or greater" so you can distribute under the terms of
the GPLv3.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20090622/ff8d7f59/attachment.pgp