Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 22, 2006 21:46 UTC (Fri) by sepreece
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
"When there are so many DRM-restricted devices that the FSF has to give up enforcing the GPL because it can't audit them, legally, we'll look back at this point, and at the decisive developers and say, "they didnt WANT to look forward".
This suggests that the anti-DRM clauses in the GPLv3 can somehow block the progress of devices containing DRM and trusted-computing features. In fact, though, there are lots of such devices in the field and will be many more. The most you can hope for is that they not run Linux. If you want to fight against efforts to legally require such things, please do so! I strongly agree with that. But, good as it is, FOSS is not yet important enough to hold back the growth of such technologies.
"You can't scare big business away from Linux now. Look at the mile stones made in 2.6. Look at the improvement upon system after system 2.6 has made over 2.4. No company in the right mind would desert a GPLv3 2.8 if it made only half the advances as 2.6 has."
This is simply not true. The companies who use, or want to use, Linux and other FOSS in their devices simply have no choice. If you make it impossible to ship GPLv3 software in devices that are critical to those companies' future (players for protected content, cell phones meeting FCC type certification rules, etc.), then they won't use GPLv3 software. They weren't using it before and they can, by and large, switch to something else with much less pain that there would be in giving up those markets.
[Note - not claiming to speak for the developers or for anyone else but myself]
to post comments)