Closing the GPL loophole: it doesn't define 'free software'.
Posted Feb 13, 2006 11:17 UTC (Mon) by ibukanov
In reply to: Closing the GPL loophole: it doesn't define 'free software'.
Parent article: FSF: GPLv3 Update #2
> The copyleft provided by GPLv3 can only protect use of the GPLv3'd software, not any other features of the device.
But why GPL covers only software? IMO a device that was designed to run only Linux and that depends on Linux in an essential way is a derivative work. My not-a-lawyer understanding of this is that the device as a whole, not only its software parts, needs to confirm to GPL when distributed. But since GPL even in v3 talks only about software, not about any derivative work, one can still put DRM on the device.
to post comments)