4 ms·
If you ask their motivation? "We want to make them safer" They worked pretty fine for decades, now, who needs these rewrites? Not saying it's useless, but in p
by nalekberov 20d ago
If you ask their motivation? "We want to make them safer"
They worked pretty fine for decades, now, who needs these rewrites?
Not saying it's useless, but in practice, what benefits did this bring?
- froh 20d agoit's GPL free. which is good for embedded, the business side of it. like cars.
- justincormack 20d agoThe kernel is still GPL
- rwmj 20d agoGood for car manufacturers, not necessarily for cars or their owners. As a car owner I quite like manufacturers to be forced to produce source code.
- LtWorf 20d agoCar manufacturers really really hate GPLv3 and the requirement that users need to be able to change the code. They claim it is for compliance but it's well known that user modifications to cars are no longer the responsibility of the car company. I think it's more on principle than any real legal concern.
- froh 20d agoyes, exactly, that's the fliplside of it. the business loves GPL free embedded, gpl-3 was created to protect our freedom, the right to repair and modify, as far as GPL components are concerned. it was created as response to Tivo, who locked in their embedded system (a TV iirc). the trend to give software mit or bsd licenses instead ead of GPL is concerning.
- wannabe44 19d agoI wouldn't have any confidence on a car which invokes coreutils in any manner. Too much surface area for embedded systems.