Le mardi 19 juin 2007 à 10:50 -0700, David Schwartz a écrit : > > > The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software > > > onto hardware > > > where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no, > > > you may not > > > modify the software running on this hardware". > > > Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually > > supported your opinion. It's still an obvious alien insert. > > It's simply shorter than saying "owners of the right or ability to decide > what software runs on that hardware".
Right is not the same thing as ability. You have a technical ability which has been converted in a "right" which in turn is used as argument to reject GPLv3. But did the original conversion happened with the approval of everyone having rights to the result? I think not. All the "GPLv2 didn't think of DRM therefore DRM is GPLv2-protected" arguments make me sick. If tomorrow Ford starts mass+producing flying saucers will they be exempt from traffic regulations because current traffic regulations only consider cars? I think not. Yet the same argument is the core of most GPL v3 objections we've seen in this thread. -- Nicolas Mailhot
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
