[ILUG] Novell A Linux Leader? GPL 3 and

[Colm MacCarthaigh]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:10:34AM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Colm MacCarthaigh <colm at stdlib.net> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> And when all desktop computer hardware contains DRM?  What good then is the
> consumer's freedom of choice?

If all desktop computer hardware contains DRM, then by implication there
would be zero market for DRM-free hardware, so there would be no problem
- since noone would care.

Even if this were a possibility - and I don't believe that it is - I as
as a mere software author do not have the authority to impose my will
upon the hardware operation; something I have nothing to do with it.

How would you feel if CPUs suddenly became licensed such that you were
not permitted to run Free Software ever? I'm sure you'd say it's a
completely unreasonably thing for a CPU manufacturer to encroach onto.
After all, you're saying that Tivo are being unreasonable in preventing
the running of modified software.

And yet, this is exactly what the GPL is attempting to do the other way
around. Personally, I would consider this more than enough for the GPLv3
to fail the DFSG and OSI tests, and I'm not alone in that.

> You're suggesting is that software licences should stand back and rely on a
> plan that is guaranteed to fail.

How is it guaranteed to fail? Would the source code suddenly become
unusable? Would I suddenly become unable to run that code elsewhere?

You are upset about *hardware* limitations. Something which has nothing
to do with the software the GPL is licensing. It's not an appropriate
place to tackle the problem.

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