Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on February 04, 2006 12:42 AM
That's not what the poster was referring to, he was referring to a hypothetical license, as in the concept of it. You're referring to it in the context of someone using code licensed by this draft GPLv3 and then not following that license. Those are two different things. The fact is, if someone doesn't agree to the license terms, they're probably not going to use the software so you'll never get to your context because the manufacturers will be thinking the former.
So let me rephrase the question: "Don't you think it's a little controlling (as in BAD IDEA) to have your software license dictate that any hardware it uses must allow any variation of that code to be run?" Now think of that in terms of say, a fire control system or a traffic control system instead of a PC. Being able to audit the software's source code is a plus, but with the GPLv3 as some have interpreted, the manufacturer could be forced to move to closed source code to maintain control of what the hardware executes. That looks like the "baby with the bathwater" to me.