Freedoms granted by the GPLvX
Posted Oct 19, 2006 17:38 UTC (Thu) by Arker
In reply to: Freedoms granted by the GPLvX
Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
I was referring to the other developers of GPLv2 code.
Then I don't see what point you were making earlier, at all. What, they were supposed to forbid folks like Linus from using the GPL? How? Why? You're just not making any sense to me.
from Section "1. Source Code"[...]
Sorry, still not following your argument here.
After some pondering, I *think* the key may have been in an earlier post though.
Not just parts covered by the licence.
The license covers the terms under which permission to take actions otherwise forbidden by copyright law are forbidden. I think you're looking at it as "the license covers software, not hardware, but then it's trying to dictate something hardware related." But this is irrellevant. The license extends permission to do things otherwise forbidden by law, as long as the conditions of the license are met. Those conditions could be just about anything. In the case of the GPL, the idea is that if you want a license, you have to pass on all rights you received to those downstream of you. In a particular case that might limit your choices on hardware... so what? It's legally permissable and ethically required.
Also sticking to my embedded point, as a general rule every device that
is connected to any kind of network is up-datable.
They'd better be, if they're directly connected. Which is exactly why you shouldn't have bricks directly connecting to public networks.
These updates are
normally validated in some way and its not these devices that are
There's no problem whatsoever with validating them, as long as the owner of the device has a way to control that validation process. The devices do change - every update changes them. They're general purpose computers outfitted with specialised software - not bricks.
Ever play rogue on a Cisco router?
to post comments)