Well, I'm sure you'll be happy to find that GPL3 does not make any software any less useful. It just means that if you want to extend the software, you must distribute source code with it. Any entity which finds this unacceptable doesn't deserve to be using this software anyway.
It becomes more useful because it encourages people to distribute source code that they may not have otherwise.
It means a lot more than that. The most significant difference in my line of work is the anti-tivoization requirements. Essentially if you ship this software in a device, you must allow the user to change the software/firmware on that device. I do embedded Linux work for several different clients, and they are almost never OK with this. So I have to be careful to never use GPLv3 software.
Not that I agree completely with the OP. I love when I can customize the firmware on devices I get (that is almost a precondition for my purchasing it), and I wish more manufacturers were OK with it.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
I expect that most of the cases you cite are simply outright GPL violations though.
There is a test case that will, if successful, allow all recipients of GPLed code to sue for GPL compliance, this will open up the possibility of enforcement to users too, which could potentially lead to class action GPL lawsuits.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
On cars, read through the presentation above, it discusses GPLv3 in cars and how that could work. Basically, there is a lot of proprietary software on top of the GPLed software in cars. When you modify the GPLed software, the other software would stop working (or be removed), and so your car would stop driving until you replaced it. You would then need to write replacements, you could then drive on your own property, or get them certified by the relevant authorities for use on public roads.
https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
This would have been useful to have for e.g. Android, where tech companies are trying to turn mobile phones into vehicles for their nonsense rather than devices under the user's control.
It's gotten to the point where I have to acquire devices with arbitrary R/W vulnerabilities just so I can patch the OS, flash my own AVB signing keys, re-generate vbmeta etc etc just to have a rooted device, but then I have one with an unpatchable arbitrary R/W vulnerability, so it's arguable how "secure" the result is...
Secure enough to watch netflix though, which is the real danger. https://xkcd.com/129
Incorrect. GPLv3 does not require source code distribution if you choose to only distribute your extensions to third parties that are under a current contract to you to operate or modify the work or any derivative thereof on your behalf and to destroy all copies of your extensions at the conclusion of the contracted operational and/or modification work.
I’m surprised that $1 modification contracts for GPLv3 works are uncommon. Open source isn’t free!
(I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
So on perm saas where the on perm operators are technical hired for $1 so the software was never legally distributed to the company that hired the on perm saas service.
Seems dubious to me.
Samsung or however could require proof that you'd actually bought one of their TVs before supplying the source. In practice they dont, but they could.
Red hat are now doing exactly this. Only red hat customers can get hold of the red hat source.
I've quoted the one bit of your statement I agree with. You suggest an entirely artificial relationship to completely bypass the clear intention of the licence. To be blunt, that's a terrible suggestion.
(I think the word "purpose" in said paragraph encapsulates why I strongly disagree with your conclusion on your second paragraph.)