Jan Ciger wrote: > Compared to v2 that tried to deal only with issues of distribution and > copying, v3 tries to go into restricting certain uses
But the GPL has always been about restricting uses. If it weren't, it wouldn't be much different from any of the other, more liberal open source licences. > Who gives you the right to restrict my rights to my > hardware in such way? If I were a GPL enthusiast, I would probably answer that you have a right to restrict your hardware however you want, but not necessarily to use *my* program to help you do it. > making my HW tamper-proof ... brings me more revenue (and perhaps > it is even a legal must - e.g. medical equipment!) Tamper-proofing for reasons of safety or security is one thing. But doing it for the reasons that Sony or TiVo do, i.e. simply to lock out competitors, is kind of opposite to the whole spirit of free software, and it rubs the GPL people up the wrong way. Personally I think the whole GPL business is more trouble than it's worth, and I prefer to use much less restrictive licences for what I release. But I can understand the GPL community's point of view -- they're trying to operate a gift economy, and they see someone who only takes gifts and never gives any back as being parasitical. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
