Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC, submitted by Kishe
"A research firm serving the mobile phone industry has published an 18-page whitepaper about open source licensing. Entitled 'GPLv2 vs. GPLv3', the paper examines the meteoric rise of open source software, and the forces that shaped each license, before concluding with an extremely detailed point-by-point comparison."
Permalink for comment 275319
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-12-02
"The GPL3 only provides that the *owner* of the device in question should have the freedom to modify it. Gamblers don't own slot machines, nor do voters own voting machines."
The owner of slot would be the casino's. As a gambler I would not want them to be able to control the code either, nor to modify it. Same with voting machines where the government owns them. Casino owners should *never* be allowed to modify code in a machine, nor should the government be allowed to modify code in voting machines. GPLv3 specifically provides this right, which would therefore make it illegal to be used in these contexts, due to other laws which do and have existed. In these contexts the "consumers" are the casino's and governments. Consumer refers to whoever owns the equipment. A gambler or a voter are not "consumers" of those devices, just users. As I mentioned already, due to laws that already exist, GPLv3 licensed code is automatically and already shut out from these markets that you mentioned.