Felix Stalder wrote:
move to software-as-service, where the GPL has no teeth
The GNU AGPL addresses this directly by requiring Sources be offered to anyone interacting with the program "over a network" but is incomplete because: .) This does not apply to any hardware not owned by users. For example, a business could offer access to computers running Free Software but would not be required to provide Source Code to those users. .) It does not help us share the hardware costs of *hosting* that software. We might do this through a Property Left legally binding social contract.
Android type approach, where the software is linked to hardware
The GNU GPLv3 addresses this directly by requiring all information needed "to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product" and disallowing "any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures" but is incomplete because: .) This does not apply to any hardware not owned by users. From the license: "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. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, ``normally used'' refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product." --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/02/tivoization-and-the-gpl.html Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com