Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 6:08 UTC (Sat) by dmantione (guest, #4640)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by sepreece
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

The devices will exist, sure. However, development costs of those devices
will be higher than development costs of open source devices. Capitalism
is what makes free software devices exist, you get a high quality OS for
free.

If manufacturers have a cost advantage if they stay DRM free, there will
be DRM free devices. So, lets implement the GPLv3.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 18:58 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

The cost of the OS is a tiny part of the development cost of a consumer device. Manufacturers do, in fact, worry about pennies of device cost, but the difference between the cost of using Linux and using a proprietary OS is a very small piece of the cost. Note that a lot of the device companies are using it to replace OSes that they wrote themselves. It's access to software that runs on Linux that is the big driver, and in many cases that is paid for under dual licenses, specifically to avoid licensing issues.

Manufacturers won't build devices they don't see a market for. A cable box that cable companies won't allow on their network won't have much market. A music player that won't work with content-owners' restrictions won't have much of a market. A cell phone that the FCC won't accept or that carriers won't sell won't have much of a market.

It's not hte manufacturers who want DRM, it's the CUSTOMERS who want the things that they can only have if they accept DRM. You can't fight that with a software license.