4 ms·
I feel like the GPL's overly political nature is basically a type of political DRM. If you try hard enough you can skirt the restrictions. If you're an end user
by jsz0 17y ago
I feel like the GPL's overly political nature is basically a type of political DRM. If you try hard enough you can skirt the restrictions. If you're an end user you have to deal with the fallout which trickles down in a variety of ways but can generally be summarized as "making things harder than they really need to be" The NVIDIA example is a good one. It would be hard to argue that the GPL has benefited users in this case. It's been an annoyance to NVIDIA and a huge headache to end users.
- antonovka 17y agoI think your observation is astute -- for a literal example, see the 'GPLONLY' implementation in the Linux kernel. Unless your module explicitly declares itself as GPL licensed, Linux will refuse to vend (new) symbols to your module.
- Scramblejams 17y agoNvidia's the annoying exception, and I say that as an owner of an 8800GT who has to recompile the module for each Debian kernel upgrade. But when I think of all the other hardware in my machine which runs without a hitch under GPL'd drivers because the manufacturers were forced to contribute the code, I like the tradeoff.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoYes, it's like a DRM that ensures that you can always copy, edit, remix, and share the files that it protects. So maybe that's not a great analogy.
- jsz0 17y agoDRM purely in the sense that political goals supersedes usability.