On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that the > FSF's president does not like.
That's not true. They can just as well throw the key away and refrain from modifying the installed software behind the users' back. > The GPLv2 never did this kind of restriction _of other works_. How about other works in which GPLed software is distributed? I think your interpretation is mistaken or at least incomplete. > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. > guess why this section has been completely removed from the GPLv3, > without a replacement? My guess: First, because it was redundant, given that the license didn't quite discuss other activities. Unless you count say "imposing restrictions on the exercise of others' freedoms" as other activities, even though these are associated with modification and distribution. Second, because GPLv3 does indeed talk about other activities, such as starting lawsuits on patent and pro-DRM grounds, or entering agreements for distribution of software along with limited patent licenses. All of these are still associated, at least to some extent, with modification and distribution, but I guess it was worth clarifying that claiming that such harmful activities are outside the scope of the license isn't a valid excuse to escape the conditions determined by the license. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
