Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:19 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand
In reply to: Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
> Still doesn't cut it
My explanation of why relicensing is possible doesn't cut is as an explanation for why it will happen? Of course, but that's because you changed the topic. C'mon.
Sorry, keyboard faster than brain there.
So, onto the topic you raised: will the developers be willing?
AFAICS, Linus' position is essentially that getting Linux on some appliance doesn't automatically mean I'm entitled to run something else on it. I also think it is quite reasonable to lock in (via signed code) what configuration the code can do to some appliances. When devices where controlled mechanically, they were designed with built-in stops and limits. Today, when the control is much more detailed, it is more and more done in software. Plus software is much easier to change than, say, sawing off a pesky stop somewhere., and changes in software aren't as easy to see in their effects (remember any bug you've chased for days lately?). Plus a software change is easy to revert ("Oops, with my modification it ended up screwing up, let's replace it by the original and go complain to the vendor..."). So yes, it does (sometimes) make a lot of sense restricting what software the buyer can run on the machine. Plus the flexibility that easily field-replaceable software gives is vital in some uses, so "just place it in ROM" doesn't cut it either.
So yes, I do think the DRM (and some other) restrictions in the draft GPLv3 (which I did read, IANAL in any case) are trying to solve a problem (current DRM frenzy) by (a) attacking the wrong problem, (b) with the wrong (non)weapons
to post comments)