On 3/23/2010 4:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have any evidence that GPLv3 makes it more difficult to
prevent installation of modified versions on dedicated equipment?
That is its intent. I don't know whether it has had any practical
effect, and I'm insufficiently motivated to go hunting around for
evidence one way or the other. Both the Linux kernel and BusyBox are
still under GPLv2, so it hasn't mattered to those projects.
That could happen only in Stallman's insane mind.
Decades ago, Stallman presciently realized what the lack of freedom
for software would mean, and we are seeing it come to life now, with
"app stores" and whatnot restricting the freedom of users.
The GPL can't undo anti-circumvention laws. If the code falls under
anti-circumvention laws then the code falls under
anti-circumvention laws, with all the consequences spelled out in
anti-circumvention laws, irrespective whether it is GPL'd or not.
Part of distributing code under GPLv3 is declaring
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> No covered work shall be
deemed part of an effective technological measure under any
applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO
copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws
prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. You may be
right that such a declaration will not help in all circumstances,
but it surely cannot hurt.
The GPLv3 can't undo patent laws either.
GPLv3 does not undo patent laws. As part of distributing a work
covered by GPLv3, you voluntarily give up certain rights under patent
law that you may have.