@blenderdumbass Rly? Of course I know the philosophy but there's a difference between practice and it. Developers develop software most users don't. Developers get paid by companies that want to use the software, if they can't use GPL-3.0 or if they are legally unsure that they want improve or develop GPL-3.0 software. I want GPL-3.0 to see adaption which is why I'm making these points. Think out of your own bubble.

@blenderdumbass @[email protected]
You made a good point. Can't reply directly so I'm doing it this way: There's a clause about industrial devices in GPL-3.0 which is good but there's an important different in GPL-3.0 which makes it much worse for use cases where you can't hand out e.g. authorization keys. You can't hand out authorization keys which allow you to reflash radio firmware like in Modems. The situation is very similar when it comes to automotive software.

@thaodan If the user cannot change software on user's device it's an injustice. And if some law of company makes devices like those radio devices or cars you just mentioned, where the user cannot change software, that is also an injustice. Those devices better not to exist. Or instead those companies can choose to lift their restrictions. Or those laws could be canceled.

@blenderdumbass Are you aware that modifying certain software such as radios can impact anyone around them? You could impact the security of anyone around you by sending radio signals on frequencies you are not allowed too. You could kill someone.
Really your username says it all in this context.