On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:04:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider this scenario:
Small company A is manufacturing a new WiFi router.
They decide to have it run HURD as the OS.
In complying with the GPLv3 they supply the signing keys and everything else
needed to install a new kernel on the hardware.
User B buys the router and modifies the kernel so it drives the WiFi to an
output power twice that which it is licensed to carry.
FCC finds out and prosecutes User B for violating the regulations.
FCC then pulls the small companies license until they change their hardware so
the driver can't push it to transmit at a higher power level and levies a
fine.
Small company A loses the money paid on the fine, has to recall all the
devices that can be modified (through software) to break the law at a massive
cost *AND* has to redesign their hardware. The total cost drives the company
into bankruptcy.
Small companies C,D and E, in order to avoid the fate of small company A,
purchases a license for proprietary OS "F" to drive their new hardware.
Net loss: A lot of the users and publicity that "Free Software" used to get,
because GPLv3 contains language that opens the companies to lawsuits that
they wouldn't otherwise face.
Which is better: Growing the base of installed GPL covered software,
or "ethics and morals" that demand the language that has been added to the
GPLv3 ? Personally I'd like to see proprietary software driven into a very
small "niche" market or entirely out of existence. However much I want this
to happen, I cannot be anything *BUT* scared of the GPLv3 simply because I
see it creating massive problems - and all because of a *small* portion of
the new language it contains. It has taken almost 15 years for "Free
Software" to make a dent in the market, and, IMHO, a lot of that is both
Linux and the "holes" in GPLv2.
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
