Unfortunately, challenging the status quo is difficult when your customers are not the final users, but other companies: if you don't deliver them a free software firmware without GPLv3 components, someone else will, or someone else will deliver something that's completely proprietary.
As developer of free software, I don't care about those, who don't care about me.
good.
It means that GPLv3 works as intended.
EDIT: as intended by the software authors, that chose freely GPLv3 as license, they were not forced to.
I'm quite sure they knew what they were doing.
If car manufacturers want to use GPLv3 software, they simply need to respect the license the author released their software under or rewrite the software.
That's false.
It simply prevents the Tivoization.
GPLv3 was created exactly with the purpose of preventing free software from becoming a commodity.
There's a cost involved when you use free software:
- the software must stay free
- if you include software licensed under a FOSS license, you have to adhere to the license terms
simple as that.
If the authors of software X or Y chose the GPLv3 as license I imagine they were completely aware and agreed to the terms of the license they used, including the limitations it enforces.
That is certainly not universally true. It is common, but not universally true.
And we should assume that the authors were NOT aware of real ecosystem implications of licenses - because nobody understands these in detail. I've been trying to understand them since the mid 1990s when I started contributing in a BSD environment, and I won't say that I properly understand them. I understand parts of them, but I don't understand all of them.
and always is. and people like you are part of the problem, since you want to enable them in their ways.
Why? why cannot we just enable companies to behave mor ethically?
Please read the rest of the sentence, it answers the question.
> people like you are part of the problem
Thank you for turning the licensing question into ad hominem.