Comment by john01dav
6 days ago
This would make it no longer free software as per the FSF's definition. We could turn many more things into GPLv3, which would prevent this, however. Then, Android and iOS can use them if and only if they go under GPLv3 too, which includes provisions against bootloader locking.
GPLv2 requires allowing reinstallation of modified versions too:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
Actually, how does that work? In my non-lawyer understanding, GPLv3 already says the end user must be allowed to actually run the code, to the point where the iOS app store can't have GPLv3 apps in it. So... does this change mean that GPLv3 apps can't legally be shipped for Android?
You can sideload apps onto your Android device using a developer setup, which is the setup that anyone building free software would use.
I think we need something in between. Permissive for individuals and small companies, but restrictive for mega corporations who impose their will on the populace.
The closest that I know of to this is GPLv3 with sold proprietary licenses. Then, when selling proprietary licenses, you can adjust the price to what you think that the customer can afford. There's debate on how ethical such adjustment is, and many companies (recently Slack and often Cloudflare) are criticized for it.
You can certainly say it is ethical depending on your political views. Large companies have many things working in their favor, and they even use that power to the disadvantage of less fortunate groups of people (or people who made different life choices).
Anyway, "it is my FOSS project so I can charge people whatever I want." sounds reasonable.
sounds like corporations would no longer have a need to open source anything
It can go two ways. Either corporations work with their users, or they work against them.
[dead]