On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alex Hudson wrote: > I would also disagree that maintaining a set of encryption keys for each > customer, plus the infrastructure to make available binary updates > tailored to each user (i.e., signed with their key), is a "trivial" > burden. Compared to hosting a set of binaries on an FTP site, it's > obviously more difficult by quite some way.
Indeed. Let's not forget however that this discussion didn't start as a consideration of how to make it easier for those who want to lock out users with encryption but rather how to prevent this abuse (in spirit if not letter) of GPL. By setting such a requirement in the terms of the license no freedom is being removed from business but rather one is being protected for recipients of such computer systems. The fact is that commercial exploiters of GPL'd code are already seeking to circumvent the protection of freedoms and that requires a response if GPL is to be worth anything. No manufacturer or OEM has to use GPL protected software in their systems - they remain free to develop their own clean implementations of whatever system while those who respect the freedom of their customers will steal a march with pre-existing software and free development :) Jason -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ up to 8Mb ADSL Broadband from just £14.98 http://www.linuxadsl.co.uk/ ADSL routers from just £21.98 _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
