4 ms·
1. Actually you can, it's not pretty because it involves code injection, but you can. But anyway, the question is "which kind of end user would want to switch
by Aldo_MX 11y ago
1. Actually you can, it's not pretty because it involves code injection, but you can.
But anyway, the question is "which kind of end user would want to switch a JPEG encoder and doesn't know about code injection"? Certainly not many.
Quoting a comment from above:
GPL is only relevant if it can grant freedom to modify software that's relevant. Freedom to modify something you don't really want to use has no value.
2. I hardly see the issue with the Android example, even if Android were GPL-ed, the carriers would include unremovable crapware, because the GPL license doesn't apply to external files.
- pornel 11y ago1. I've meant "can" more as allowed by proprietary licenses and laws like DMCA (by which you can't), than in the hacker sense that you can break all DRM you want and declare copyright is bullshit anyway. > the question is "which kind of end user would want to … No, that's completely missing the point. It's like "We don't need freedom of speech, because most people have nothing interesting to say". 2. GPL3 has anti-tivoization clause, so if they modified Android to prevent removal of any program (closed or not) you would have right to reverse that change and get rid of the crapware.