[ILUG] Novell A Linux Leader? GPL 3 and

[Colm MacCarthaigh]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:32:33AM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> If you give me some GPL'd software and tell me that I have the freedom to
> modifiy it but that if I do so, my computer will be a brick, that's not
> fine. 

Makes sense that you don't understand then, since that isn't what anyone
- Linus included - is talking about. 

The above scenario is unreasonable, and it's the product of
self-righteous zealouts trying to extend their influence to where it
shouldn't matter. 

If someone gives you GPL'd software, you get the source - and you are
of course free to modify it - including to run it on any piece of
hardware you like.

If someone sells you hardware that turns into a brick when you modify
it's software - you're a fool for having bought it, and it's hardware
consumer issue - *not* a software licensing issue.

For example when Tivo distribute GPL software, I get their modified
source - and I can go use those modifications on any other piece of
hardware I can make it work. That their specific piece of hardware won't
run it is a different problem, and it has nothing to do with the GPL.

> What would the GPL be for if it allowed that?

The GPL protects *code*. 

>   Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or
>   authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of
>   the work, perhaps modified by you, [...]

See this is the part that's unreasonable and makes no sense. "install"
and "execute" refer to the environment in which the software will run,
not the software itself. This is an attempt to extend the tentacles of
the GPL into something that the source code author has no right claim
over.

It's just an attempt to punish distributors who happen to be hardware
providers also for what the FSF perceive as evil wrongdoing. It has
nothing to do with source code.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net