-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Pablo,
Pablo Angulo wrote: > And just in case there is still any confusion, what I was thinking is > that some game console, or VCR, or PDA, or any device that is actually a > computer, may include a collection of free games (for simplicity, assume > the source code is not modified). Depending on the device, it wouldn't > mean a great effort to the owner of the device, and adds some value. But > then they may decide to lock the machine so that it won't run modified > software. And that means that many people is getting your GPL game, and > some source code, but they cannot modify the game and run it in the same > machine that they own. So it's not that they're making money, but only > that the end users cannot play with your game's source (at least on that > machine). Right, that's true. But one way or another, if you do not have a compiler/development tools for that machine, the vendor can be compliant with GPL and you *still* won't be able to do anything with it. That is why the example was a red herring. I believe this is also why so many people are opposed to the GPL v3. Compared to v2 that tried to deal only with issues of distribution and copying, v3 tries to go into restricting certain uses and that is more in line with what you will find in the various EULAs than what free software was traditionally about. As a hardware developer, if I design my box to not be user modifiable for various reasons (e.g. integrity of the network, vital integrity of the system, etc.), why should I suddenly be forced to make an exception for your program? Who gives you the right to restrict my rights to my hardware in such way? This goes beyond what copyright is about and I think that many people pushing GPL v3 do not see this angle. They are only very afraid of being ripped off - honestly, making my HW tamper-proof (doesn't need to be just DRM!) brings me more revenue (and perhaps it is even a legal must - e.g. medical equipment!) than having your software with the attached legal baggage available on it. The only person losing is the developer of the GPL v3 software here. There are only very few OSS programs that a company producing proprietary hardware would not be willing to re-implement - unless you have something like a Linux kernel or Apache, you are not really relevant with your GPL v3. I think that many OSS developers need a bit of reality check sometimes. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH0rfsn11XseNj94gRAg2fAKCfcDgPL0wDQq+2bZqGRp6SdWs2hQCfaBe+ t652iSeU/E1yruuSCB7Obd0= =TU8b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
