[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd)

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    Wouldn't it make sense to add a paragraph to the GPL, stating that a
    company using GPL software in their system must also provide all that
    documentation to their customers? Only then the SW modification can be
    properly done?

It is not possible for a software license to require this in general.
It may be possible to require this in the case where the software is
delivered with a product.  For GPLv4, we could think about whether
this is a good idea.  But we are not yet working on a GPLv4.

    Don't forget that a proper test area is also needed, which can simulate
    all kind of street conditions. For ABS/Airbag you may also need a crash
    test environment including soem sample cars to try thigns out.

    Without access to these, you will not be able to prove proper system
    behaviour to the certification authorities.

I don't know what standards they use.  If certification is hard to
get, that may discourage people from changing this software.  Whether
that is a good or a bad outcome, I am not sure.  If the certification
is indeed necessary, and done reasonably, I suppose the outcome is
good.

Be that as it may, it does not excuse letting manufacturers restrict
the users for their own purposes.

    So once again I think GPLv3 for U-Boot would avoid using it in many
    possible applications, which would be a loss for the project and its users.

It is important for free software users to remember that they are
giving the users something, not vice versa.  If people use U-Boot,
that is their gain; if they don't use it, that is their loss.

During my work on GCC and other programs, companies often asked me to
weaken the license and in exchange we would get "more use" of the
program.  I respond to them, "More use of the program is just a
subgoal; the main goal is to give more users freedom."

Sometimes companies say that they would put a lot of effort into
improving a program if the developers change the license.  But they do
not necessarily contribute much if the developer caves.  In effect
they are asking to buy a license change on credit and won't even sign
an IOU.