Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 23:02 UTC (Fri) by gnb (subscriber, #5132)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by emk
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

What about the third future where you are surrounded by devices that
are neither running Linux nor hackable? Surely this is even worse since
you don't even have access to the code for the purpose of running it on
different hardware? Pushing vendors towards completely closed systems
(which is of course an open question, some people see this as a likely
consequence of GPL v3, others don't) would seem to be a clearly bad
outcome.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 8:00 UTC (Sat) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] (4 responses)

How would that be any better than an unmodifiable Linux?

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 10:42 UTC (Sat) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link] (3 responses)

It would clearly be worse. That was my point: use of Linux in embedded
systems is appealing, but it's usually not the only realistic choice (for
one thing embedded OSs are generally priced far more flexibly than desktop
ones) and simply having all the device manufacturers walk away and choose
proprietary OSs achieves nothing. It doesn't prevent the spread of DRM and
it cuts off a useful source of development effort for the kernel. As other
posters have said, changes in legislation are probably a more realistic
way of tackling DRM. There seems to be a perception that manufacturers
have no choice and therefore that relicensing the kernel can be used as a
way of forcing policy changes on them. Now, I'm less averse to that idea
than some of the kernel developers seem to be, but my experience is that
the premise is just false.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 2:52 UTC (Sun) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

The polititions are purchased by the corporations, that is likely an unrealistic way of tackling DRM. If a device isn't hackable it really doesn't matter which non-free kernel is being used. At that point the kernel is only a marketing ploy. The kernel developers are only looking at the corporations as users of the kernel, the end non-corporate users are not even being considered. Being able to purchase a bunch of devices with non-free kernels is not interesting.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 10:36 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link] (1 responses)

So you say that you will have less to pay with if corporations don't use linux. Although for the end user it will not make a bit of a difference whether it is a GPLv2 code in the device or it is a closed source software. I can see where Stallman is going and where Kernel Developers are going. I am sure where my loyalities lie. I am just a user.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 11:58 UTC (Mon) by anandsr21 (guest, #28562) [Link]

s/pay/play/