Re: article on GPLv3, Linux kernel, and Devices Rigged to Malfunction

 On 24-Oct-2006, Alex Hudson wrote:
> [distributing codes necessary to run modified programs is] only like
> releasing source code in so far as the GPLv3 defines source code to
> include authorisation keys.

The GPL has always attempted to define source code such that it
includes anything particular to the work necessary to exercise the
freedoms of the GPL.

> Very few free software authors and distributors who will be roughly
> compliant from day one will design in authorisation codes.

Which result makes the GPLv3 attractive to many free software
developers.

> It seems to me that they will be used almost exclusively by those
> who are also likely to violate the GPL by not distributing source
> code.

Perhaps. Those who don't respect the license can be expected to
violate it, so this appears to be a no-op.

-- 
 \     "What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?"  -- Anonymous |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben-TqlCGjI+HWGnbCmf7pGUHw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature