From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Stallman Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:50:26 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20090625212430.GC23174@game.jcrosoft.org> (message from Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:24:30 +0200) References: <20090618145128.69F27832E416@gemini.denx.de> <20090623192634.GB23560@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> <200906231541.54291.vapier@gentoo.org> <20090623211459.GL23512@game.jcrosoft.org> <20090625212430.GC23174@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de If I use a GPLv3 bootloader in a medical tool, a car, Point of payment terminal, Military System, etc... it is a grave security flaw. I'm not sure that you will be very happy if someone can modify the Firmware freely. As you may loose money to be killed and at the extrem kill millions of people. There is no need to exaggerate. Millions of people modify cars physically, and it is not a dangerous practice. If you buy a car, or a medical tool for my own use, you deserve to be able to change the software in it, just as you can change it physically. The other systems that you speak of are not consumer products, so this requirement in GPLv3 does not apply to them. I do not think the v3 is a benefit. I'll never accept the concept to an opensource licence that will force me to use a software in a specific way that someone will choose for me as do the v3. It will be freedom kill. You seem to be worried about something you haven't described clearly. I think you're afraid of shadows, but since you have not described them clearly, I really don't know. All I can say is that no version of the GPL was meant to be an open source license. Thinking of it in terms of "open source" will tend to be an obstacle to understanding it.