On 3/23/2010 4:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have any evidence that GPLv3 makes it more difficult to prevent installation of modified versions on dedicated equipment?
That is its intent. I don't know whether it has had any practical effect, and I'm insufficiently motivated to go hunting around for evidence one way or the other. Both the Linux kernel and BusyBox are still under GPLv2, so it hasn't mattered to those projects.
That could happen only in Stallman's insane mind.
Decades ago, Stallman presciently realized what the lack of freedom for software would mean, and we are seeing it come to life now, with "app stores" and whatnot restricting the freedom of users.
The GPL can't undo anti-circumvention laws. If the code falls under anti-circumvention laws then the code falls under anti-circumvention laws, with all the consequences spelled out in anti-circumvention laws, irrespective whether it is GPL'd or not.
Part of distributing code under GPLv3 is declaring <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. You may be right that such a declaration will not help in all circumstances, but it surely cannot hurt. > The GPLv3 can't undo patent laws either. GPLv3 does not undo patent laws. As part of distributing a work covered by GPLv3, you voluntarily give up certain rights under patent law that you may have. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
