On 1/30/06, Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thomas Horsten wrote:
> > That would be a dubious circumvention. Remember that the GPLv3 is still a
> > draft - the wording can (and should probably) be improved to make it clear
> > that the system as a whole must behave identically if a modified version
> > of the GPL'ed software is used.
>
> As a software license, GPLv3 can dictate the usage rules for software
> distributed under it, but it can't dictate the usage terms of hardware
> and software independently developed (ex.: DRM'ed hardware and
> proprietary user-space applications). No wording could erase that.
> And what is suggest is not "circumvention", it's just not something
> GPLv3 could cover.
I may be missing the point here, (In case you're more than welcome to
correct me), but ... Why? Can't a software license restrict the usage
of the software? In which ways do you think the sentence "Don't use in
DRM'ed hardware" differs from sentences like "Not allowed in country
X", "Don't use for commercial purposes", and other alikes ? I think
that saying in which hardware your software can or cannot run is a
pretty valid license term (without messing with the question about it
being the right thing to do here).
Besides that, I pretty much agree with the rest of your mail.
--
Free Software : Technology for a better world
=============================
Glauber de Oliveira Costa
jabber: [email protected]
=============================
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
