Right, so let me just check if I got your logic right.
1) OEMs should somehow be restricted in what they can and cannot bundle, I
would assume by government. Government legislation and restrictions for
everybody = freedom. Sure, that makes plenty sense, I'm sure nine out of ten
tyrants would agree. So far as I'm concerned that'd just be one more nasty
overreach, much like the GPLv3 is overreaching into things it should have no
business with.
2) So what you have against them is that compared to the GPL they have
substantially less restrictions and give substantially more freedom. At least
in the traditional sense of the word. Of course, if we're operating under the
redefining of words from part 1, namely that restriction = freedom, this
might be different.
Replacing one nonsensical example with another one then. It wouldn't make a
lick of difference, case and point, numerous propriatary drivers already
exist, and companies like Nvidia doesn't seem to have any problems churning
them out.
Let's also not forget that distros doesn't seem to have any trouble including
these drivers. How exactly would a permissive license make any of this
easier? Hell, if anything there are more propriatary drivers under Linux
than, say, the BSD's, although that is at least partly due to most of them
not being compatible anyway.
I'm unsure what "glue" you're talking about.
Neither does the GPL. It just encourages more badly written, less secure and
generally more troublesome propriatary software. Whether you consider that a
good thing is of course another topic.
