Hello, On Wed, 15 Jul 2026, at 22:25, Soren Stoutner wrote: > That is the core difference between the GPLv2 and the GPLv3. When the GPLv2 > came out, nobody had ever used hardware and DRM to lock down software. Now, > that is fairly common. The GPLv3 was updated to address that. If the DFSG > were written today, I can’t imagine any scenario in which it would not > specifically address that as well.
GPLv2 already doesn’t allow what you call DRM preventing to install the software: > For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for > all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus > the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. GPLv3 expands this section to be more explicit: > “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, > authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute > modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified > version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure > that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case > prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. > ... > Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in > accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and > with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must > require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying. -- Cheers, Andrej
