FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
Posted Oct 18, 2006 14:19 UTC (Wed) by cventers
In reply to: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
I see it going one of three ways:
1. People get incredibly paranoid, over-react, and fork important
projects back off into GPLv2-only, leaving a large market of free
software available to be abused by manufacturers, who scoop it up rapidly
and DRM-lock every new device on the market, leaving the hobbyist
embedded developer _nowhere_ to go;
2. The kernel developers stand largely alone in sticking their nose up in
the air, some manufacturers get by with just the kernel, and the hobbyist
is still fucked;
3. Enough GPLv3 software exists that some companies pay for WinCE or
VxWorks in order to avoid the DRM restriction. Then their competition
comes out and builds a better, cheaper hammer on GPLv3 free software -
without the DRM.
By the way, you can replace 'hobbyist' with 'user' in these scenarios.
You don't have to be a programmer to enjoy the GPL's freedom to adapt the
software, just look at Rockbox for a great example.
And I hear that you're not making devices for hobbyist programmers, but
we hobbyist programmers are not making free software for you to abuse.
Would you like to meet at the same table and work out a mutually
beneficial relationship in which you freely use our free software to
build a better hammer, so long as we reserve the right to use it how we
please once we've payed you for it?
to post comments)