"As an end user GPLv3 doesn't stop you to use the software on whichever device you choose." Device of Choice is iPhone, mostly because of the lock down nature of the device. so YES it does. "give the code with the same freedom as you received it" App's do they provide the code in the App itself or online with a link to download. Access to the code is not limited. "If you can't currently run it on a non-jailbroken iDevice, this is due to the limitations that Apple puts on you." I can currently run it on non-jailbroken iDevices until Stallman Nazi's get the Apps pulled over GPL v3 , this is not a limitation from Apple this is a limitation on GPL v3 and the Stallman Nazi's. "concept behind GPL is to always ensure that the end user has the freedom to hack this code, and apple doesn't want it." But people can still hack the code because developers that released open source Apps included the code or link to the code. If Apple didn't want it they wouldn't allow even that. They don't block it at all so nope sorry not Apple, again it comes down to GPL. "So if you look at the details, it's all Apple's fault because : - They don't want users to do what they want. They block it with DRM. - GPL licenses are designed with the purpose to always let the users do what they want (as long as this freedom is passed to the next in the copy-chain) - Apple prefers no to use GPL code because it interferes with their intentions of limiting the freedom of the end user." Heres my take on it, its not Apples fault but GPL v3 Fault - The device is a appliance, some users choose it because its designed around DRM and safety, a walled garden - GPL licenses are designed to make sure the freedom of the code remains intact which it does even if the delivery system is DRM. As long as the developer provides the code I don't see what the problem is and what is limited. - Apple prefers not to use GPL because off the BS around it, nothing to do with intentions ot limiting freedoms. GPL is just waste deep of problems so rightly so they avoid it just like me as a end user I avoid it. Last I gotta call the BS out on this one "The latest invention of manufacturer is DRM. You get the code, but you can't do what you want with it, because if you want to modify it, you must sign it before uploading it (as the device doesn't run non-signed code) and you don't have the key. You got the code, but this code is useless" So what, i can give you a CD with code but unless you aquire a computer its useless. I can write you some code on paper but unless you got a computer to use the code its useless. Its no different then having to sign up for a system that helps keep the system secure. By your backwards logic, no code is free because of the associated cost of Computer Hardware and electricity that allows you to use the code.

How can you say it does not when it clearly does. Can I get GPL v3 Software for my iphone. NO I cant. Its not compatible with the distribution method. So yes that clause does affect me the end user. Good open source software is not on the App store or not for long because of this. Even though the code is free for all to use the distrbution method isn't compatable. Its political because the claws was put in to force a ideology upon every one about distribution methods, and so forth. So my right to enjoy the hard work and efforts of many is gone from that one clause

Thats because they belong to the Richard Stallman cult. Its why they all think alike and believe the utter the same BS.

spoken like a true cult follower. Keep up the good work for grand master Stallman.

No you don't. Let the user decide if they want to exercise their rights. If they want the code to work on they will get the code from the source that allows them to work on it. You act as if the second some one makes a locked down product with your code that your original code vanishes and is no longer accessibly or available. Let the user decide what matters.

Stop saying End users rights and freedoms, its not about the end user it never was. Its all about the union of programmers and that is all its about. Programmers couldn't give a dam about End users. From a programming friend I don't give two shits about users, I care about other developers who use and contribute to my code. No user is going to contribute anything except support requests. I'm not interested in supporting freeloaders, I'm interested in protecting the freedoms of other programmers. So be honest at least. Its only about programmers rights. No one else's.

Under GPL v2 thats how it works. GPL v3 became political with the anti tivo stuff which is why you cant get GPL v3 stuff on a iPhone. Lets go back to GPL v2 so we can all live happy together. Programmers who don't give a shit about end users and end users who doing give a shit about programmers :)

Im a End user and I cant use open source software on my preferred device despite the fact the code is accessible and free for all to see. Is the point of the GPL to protect and share knowledge (code) or to force every one to operate under Richard Stallmans vision. GPL v3 is political. GPLv2 was about the code.

A programming friends comment on the subject, the truth comes out. "I don't give two shits about users, I care about other developers who use and contribute to my code. No user is going to contribute anything except support requests. I'm not interested in supporting freeloaders, I'm interested in protecting the freedoms of other programmers." So maybe this is why programmers that support GPL v3 don't like Apple, because Apple cares about the end users while programmers don't give a rats ass off of the free loaders. For the first time in my life im going to be thankful we have Microsoft and Apple because a world under the control of people with these attitudes would be horrible. At least some one is looking out for the users.

YES and GPL v2 was good for this. That was the point was access to the code so the code was free to all. GPL v3 takes it further and because of distribution methods even if the code is free for all to use, its not compatible now with a lot of stuff.

Ya but some one else can take the same code make something that competes with the non free derivative and thus give users a choice, do i want to use the non free derivative or the free derivative.

Isn't it up to those end users to choose if they want to be restricted by said company or can choose to use alternatives of the same code that isn't restrictive. Leave it up to the end user to choose being restricted or not.

you said it, "exception" that is the problem. Period.

Yup, I want to use open source software on my iPhone but the GPLv3 prevents it so my choices are to dump my preferred device or drop the open source software. Dropping the open source software was easy.

GPL v3 anti-TIVO-ization clause was the last nail in the coffin for me as a end user to. I avoid GPL v3 software as a end user because its Richard Stallmans political tool. Its not about freedoms any more like GPL v2