Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on February 05, 2006 04:52 AM
No, YOU are the one missing the point. No one is telling any hardware developer that they must run my software. Your complaint is purely ficticious.
What the GPL3 draft says is that if you take *MY* GPL3 software, you cannot take it and modify it and republish it in a way that *I* am denied the right or ability to modify the software and still get the added code to work. What the GPL3 draft says is that the "source code" includes everything required in order to be able to make a functional modifications. In particular if the software cannot be modified and compiled and continue to work without some specific crypto key, then that key is a part of the source code for creating and compiling that software.
It's the same old GPL principals and operation as always, merely addressing new legal issues and closing a potential loophole. The purpose and function of the GPL is (1) to guarantee you the legal right to modify and use the software, and one new clause of the GPL3 is to guarantee that right is not denied on the basis of the DMCA or EUCD, and (2) to guarantee that the full source is included, inclduding everything required for making functional modifications. The same old GPL principals and operations as always. Merely updated to address a new law that threatens that legal guarantee, and updated to close a potential loophole that might be abused to keep critical elements secret to deny people the ability to make functional modifications.