(no subject)
Jan. 10th, 2008 03:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stevenehrbarIf the purpose of the GPL v3 was to "restrict you from making the GPL3 software itself unmodifiable in situ" (Bruce Perens), then it would have a blanket ban on doing such. It doesn't. It has a ban on doing such in consumer hardware only. "Consumer hardware" is a field of endeavor. I can, say, sell ATMs with software that cannot be modified (even by the people who bought the ATMs), and the GPL v3 is just hunky-dory with that.
Either the ability to modify the software in situ is a necessary characteristic of "free software", or it isn't. If it is, the GPL v3 deliberately and explicitly fails to protect "free software" in the case of non-consumer hardware, specifically allowing GPL v3 software to be made non-free.
If the ability to modify the software in situ isn't a necessary characteristic of "free software", the GPL v3 deliberately and explicitly fails to uphold the principles of "free software" by discriminating against consumer hardware manufacturers with an extraneous restriction against their use of free software.
Either the ability to modify the software in situ is a necessary characteristic of "free software", or it isn't. If it is, the GPL v3 deliberately and explicitly fails to protect "free software" in the case of non-consumer hardware, specifically allowing GPL v3 software to be made non-free.
If the ability to modify the software in situ isn't a necessary characteristic of "free software", the GPL v3 deliberately and explicitly fails to uphold the principles of "free software" by discriminating against consumer hardware manufacturers with an extraneous restriction against their use of free software.
