Ingo Molnar writes: > this is largely irrelevant to my argument: the FSF is clearly trying to > extend the scope of the GPL to restrict the distribution of certain > hardware+software combinations. The FSF is not really arguing that the > boundary between software and hardware is diffuse. (which btw. it > clearly is) The FSF simply wants to be able to say via the GPLv3: "to be > able to distribute GPL-ed software, the hardware is required to do this > and this".
Most people arguing for the expansive interpretation do not really care what hardware is combined with what software. They care about the ability for the user (in the GPLv2's terms, someone who receives GPL'ed software) to have comparable ability to modify and (re-)distribute the software as the software distributor does. The issue of GPLed software on DRMed hardware applies equally to digital video recorders, where the hardware and software distributor are usually the same, and video game consoles, where they are not. There is no good reason to treat a "GPL-incompatible" hardware platform (for example, incompatible due to restrictions on the keys to generate digital signatures) differently than a "GPL-incompatible" patent area. If a software distributor cannot simultaneously comply with the GPL and his other obligations, he should either not distribute the software or be prepared to face the liability from breaching his obligations. Michael Poole - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
