Comment Re:Even simpler (Score 1) 365
All GPL means is that you have the right to tinker with your GPL'd software in any way you want, and redistribute anything you come up with.
Thats exactly it. You have the ability to modify the software in any way you want. As long as you make an offer to distribute the source when you distribute the binaries.
... What if the closed source product isn't even under their control, or contains DRM?
You're missing the point here, in much the same way Linus does, over and over. I don't think GPLv3 is intended to kill DRM entirely -- you can
certainly have a bit of proprietary software which uses DRM, and it can talk to GPL'd software. The point is, you're not allowed to use DRM to
force only one specific version of the GPL'd software to run.
Linus is not missing the point, I think you do not understand his point of view,
You said it above, you can do anything you want with the source, but Linus goes further and says "not the hardware". As long as changes to the source are redistributed, Linus does not care if the binary will not run on *that* particular piece of hardware anymore, if thats a problem then don't buy the product.
The GPL-3 would make it all but impossible to implement effective DRM on hardware using GPL'd code.
Adding requirements to distribute keys would kill any future for Linux in parts of the embedded space.
Its all about the source. Not keys, not DRM and not limitations on use, hence no GPL-3 for the kernel.
Thats exactly it. You have the ability to modify the software in any way you want. As long as you make an offer to distribute the source when you distribute the binaries.
You're missing the point here, in much the same way Linus does, over and over. I don't think GPLv3 is intended to kill DRM entirely -- you can
certainly have a bit of proprietary software which uses DRM, and it can talk to GPL'd software. The point is, you're not allowed to use DRM to
force only one specific version of the GPL'd software to run.
Linus is not missing the point, I think you do not understand his point of view,
You said it above, you can do anything you want with the source, but Linus goes further and says "not the hardware". As long as changes to the source are redistributed, Linus does not care if the binary will not run on *that* particular piece of hardware anymore, if thats a problem then don't buy the product.
The GPL-3 would make it all but impossible to implement effective DRM on hardware using GPL'd code.
Adding requirements to distribute keys would kill any future for Linux in parts of the embedded space.
Its all about the source. Not keys, not DRM and not limitations on use, hence no GPL-3 for the kernel.
