Disclaimer 1: I don't believe intellect is property. Disclaimer 2: As I understand it, GPLv3 will contain some sort of provision for limiting the choice of hardware it can be run on.
Statement: In my mind, Linus has won the argument. I just read a Newsforge article with relevant Linus quotes about the GPLv3, and what he said makes sense. As far as I'm concerned, the GPLv3, as it is presently conceived, is wrong. Torvalds versus GPLv3 DRM restrictions : http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/02/1636216 Appended Clause 1: My understanding, cf Disclaimer 2, may be wrong. Appended Clause 2: The GPLv3 may change before being finalized. Discussion: It seems odd that RMS's original intentions were maximum freedom, to the point of saying that you can't even limit the use of the software to non-commercial use. I always thought that re-affirmation of software freedom was kind of incongruous with the rest of RMS's image. This DRM snafu may be proof of my hunch. I have to agree with Linus on that fine line; my choice is right, your choice is allowed. If you want to limit what others can do with your stuff using technological means, that's your prerogative. DMCA and copyright is not. If the GPL starts telling me what I can't do with the software, or what modifications I can't make, then it's leaving the realm of a necessary patch to the legal system, and starting to become the thing it was meant to patch in the first place. Stockholm Syndrome, maybe? -todd Post Script Question: Did I use "cf" right in Appended Clause 1? -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
