On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 12:31 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:This seems silly to me. Sure, lasers and medical equipment is
The GPLv3 rewords it in an attempt to be clearer but also I think rather
more over-reaching. It's not clear what for example happens with a
rented device containing GPL software but with DRM on the hardware.
Thats quite different to owned hardware. GPLv2 leaves it open for the
courts to make a sensible decision per case, GPLv3 tries to define it in
advance and its very very hard to define correctly.
Also the prevention of running modified versions is not only caused by
economic interests and business models. There are also scenarios where
it is simply necessary:
- The liability for damages, where the manufacturer of a device might
be responsible in case of damage when he abandoned the prevention. This
applies to medical devices as well as to lasers, machine tools and many
more. Device manufacturers can not necessarily escape such liabilities
as it might be considered grossly negligent to hand out the prevention
key, even if the user signed an exemption from liability.
- Regulations to prevent unauthorized access to radio frequencies, whichUnauthorized use is illegal and easy enough to track down.
is what concerns e.g. cellphone manufacturers.