The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 30, 2007 18:18 UTC (Fri) by dirtyepic (guest, #30178)
In reply to: The third GPLv3 draft by dirtyepic
Parent article: The third GPLv3 draft

I forgot to mention the rationale behind the separation, or at least one rationale that I can see: If you do happen to own a mainframe, NASA space shuttle, nuclear power plant control station, deep-sea research robot, or a General Electric MR Systems Signa HDx 3.0T MRI machine, you probably want to be DAMNED sure that the code running on said device has not been tampered with in any way, shape, or form. The existence of a key that allowed the device to run modified code would be a grave security risk.

Think voting machines.

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 31, 2007 2:46 UTC (Sat) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link]

If there is a voting machine out there, using GPL software, and that software has a known vulnerability, and the manufacturer refuses to fix it, then YES I want my county to have the right and ability to fix the bug.

I suppose they could just scrap all the worthless machines, but that seems like a waste.