1) The GPLv3 is purposefully written against the entertainment industry, just like the SSPL is purposefully written against the hosting industry. Not locking the device down is absolutely not an option for devices like game consoles. 2) So if a desktop environment has a button to create an unprivileged account, only the admin that clicks it is violating the license? Why is the button there to begin with?

@jobukkit if you say GPLv3 is discriminatory towards, e.g., game consoles, then you might as well say GPLv2 is discriminatory against any other number of software competitors who cannot build a software product in their industry with source code disclosed. The GPL does not prevent you from building a game console, smart-home assistant, or thermostat using GPL'd code; market forces may or may not make it so you can turn a profit doing so.

@apsillers What line is the SSPL crossing, then? Hosting providers can theoretically only allow open source software onto their servers, like the SSPL requires...

@jobukkit SSPL and the Open Source Definition

@jobukkit The GPL allows proprietary elements in a software stack. You can run GPL software on a proprietary OS, or proprietary software on a GPL OS. But SSPL reaches beyond the licensed work and its derivatives, and requires unrelated parts of the software stack to have a SSPL-compatible license. This isn't literally impossible – BSD exists, a lot of modern devops/sysadmin tools are Apache-2.0-licensed – but it's a tremendous overreach, clearly designed to prevent competitors to MongoDB Atlas.

@jobukkit "So if a desktop environment has a button to create an unprivileged account, only the admin that clicks it is violating the license?" – Merely creating the account wouldn't violate the license. The admin would have to create an account and then perform "a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term" in order to violate the clause. Merely letting a family member use the device probably wouldn't be a violation; renting it out probably would be, I think.

@jobukkit, the problem is that the SSPL mandates the use of open-source software. For example, if you offer MongoDB as a service, you can't use Veritas for backups, you can't use Microsoft IIS to run your management console, you can't virtualize your server using vSphere, and so on. Yes, it is possible to comply with the license, but it requires very careful selection of software to do so.

@TannerSwett “If you do all your chores, you may use your computer for the rest of the day!” is a transaction that transfers a fixed term of use to the recipient. One that GNOME explicitly falicitates with its parental controls.

@jobukkit It probably does not constitute ‘the right of possession […] of the User Product’, though, despite the possessive pronoun.

@user3840170 (Sorry, deleted the previous comment when I saw your edit, there’s still a spelling mistake in my comment as well 😵) It says “regardless of how the transaction is characterized” so I don’t think claiming that children don’t actually own computers holds up, especially if the child paid for the computer with their allowance.

I think this discussion's getting fairly off-topic. If anyone wants to start a new question such as "Does a parent giving a device to a child constitute a conveyance under GPLv3?", feel free, but I'd prefer this conversation not to continue in this comments field.

"the person who did all those things to the laptop before conveying it was indeed violating GPLv3" The person doing all those things would not be violating the GPLv3 because the GPLv3 only applies to someone who agrees to it or needs it as a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. None of the things done with the laptop qualify. Also, the GPLv3 allows it anyway, see section 2 which explains what actions make one subject to the license. (This isn't "convey"ing as defined in the GPLv3 because no copy is made assuming you downloaded the Linux copy from someone else.)

@DavidSchwartz please don't quote me selectively. What I actually wrote is "If you are right [about the GPL having been violated] it means the person who did all those things to the laptop before conveying it was indeed violating GPLv3." If you don't think the GPL has been violated, your argument is with the OP, who thinks that those actions constitute a violation, rather than with me, who is merely pointing out who the violator would be if and only if there was a violation.

@MadHatter That's a pretty silly argument. Sure, if we want to accept that his claim is necessarily completely false then your claim is perfectly correct since a false statement implies any statement and your statement begins with saying "If you are right". Sure, you can follow that with any statement at all and in a vacuous, silly sense your claim is not wrong.

But the point is, your statement cannot be correct regardless of whether he's right or not because a person who is not subject to the GPLv3 cannot possibly violate it.