1. Not only that is not true, but considering that literally chromeos-base already depends on bash, I find that hard to believe. So, source?
2. Even if that were true, it would mean that Google _is shipping GPL3 software_! So much for "Google avoiding GPL3 software".
3. That Google was forced to offer "developer mode" as a consequence of shipping GPL3 (this I don't dispute).. how is this a bad thing?

https://together.jolla.com/question/...embrace-gplv3/


Aaaaaand we start the namecalling.
Summary what I see from my side:

1. A claim (that "GPLv3 licensed software [is] unsuitable for devices which are not user-controlled, e.g. a "presentation point" (in a museum etc.)" which I find hard to believe and I asked for sources, only to be shown that it didn't came from Jolla, but from you (my mistake).

2. When I inquiry into the claim, I get that "this is nitpicking; I meant tablets lended by museums", and a vague reference to a story about a "Dutch museum"

3. This is directly contradicting the GPLv3 FAQ by the own FSF, so I quote the relevant FAQ item, while asking for further details on the "Dutch museum" story. I specifically mention that I am interested on the claim about the "museum devices".

4. Again, I don't get an answer.
Rather you start subjecting me to an higher standard, e.g. now if I use a word like "encryption keys" apparently I waste a roundtrip in the discussion since you will simply stop the conversation to ask me to use clearly-defined words. Do you realize how this sounds to others? What if every time you used a phrase like "cryptographic mechanisms" (which you have) I would stop the conversation and ask you to please limit yourself to license terms, wasting another post?

5. Despite claiming that you are not trying to FUD, you try to FUD your way out at literally _every_ _single_ _opportunity_.
Every message of yours has a totally gratuitous remark about how you think the FSF is more dangerous than people think or why the FSF is lying about the meaning of the licenses. If this is not FUD, I don't know what it is. Examples:

"For me the *GLPv3 family of licenses are "unfree" licenses, which should never have been OSI-approved," -- Guess what. They are approved.

"Many of the FSF's explanations around the GPLv3 state some things (their details vary), which are definitely not in the GPLv3.
Some believe this is done deliberately. " -- Here claiming the FSF literally lies _deliberately_ about the GPLv3. A claim that apparently _I_ am supposed to prove is not true (so I have to prove a negative! how nice!) . Also note the prevalence of weasel words like "Some people say" , which is a textbook example of FUD.

"And it is the reason why Google, Jolla and many others avoid *GPLv3 code like hell." -- Despite the fact that Google is literally shipping GPLv3 software in products _right now_,
and I cannot think of any company avoiding the GPLv3 other than Jolla and maybe Apple.

"And specifically for the future of the (L)GPLv3 Qt releases: The KDE community is committed to handle that somehow (trying to convince the Qt company to alter their plans for the GPLv3 releases or to "soft-fork" Qt), " -- the KDE community is NOT threatening to use the FreeQT clause because of the GPLv3, which they actually _requested_ back in the Trolltech days (and literally applauded when it was announced). The reason is because Qt is delaying open source dumps for up to 12 months in some cases, which is not related to the GPLv3 at all.

6. I try to ignore these off-topic baits (as best as I can, but I admit I am not very good at not biting them ), but fail. I claim that Google is shipping GPLv3 software.

7. Again I don't get an answer about the "Dutch museum story".
Rather, I get namecalled, and then you claim that Google only ships GPLv3 software in "developer mode". Not only this is nonsense for reasons mentioned above, it also shows a failure to understand the point of the GPLv3. Plus the fact that Google ships GPLv3 software is already enough to dispel your FUD.

8. Then, in an additional post, you even claim that "Jolla is now going to ship GPLv3", as if it was some type of miracle.

First, this contradicts any argument regarding Jolla "not being able to" ship GPLv3 software.

Second, what is so hard about it? I have right now a Remarkable Tablet in front of me. This was built by some KDE guys. It uses GPL+3 software like Bash or Qt 5.15. (So much for the FUD about KDE disliking GPLv3!) The only thing they have to do is to give me the root password, which they do!

Look, even Microsoft is shipping GPLv3 bash these days. There is just no point to the discussion. It is particularly offensive that you even try to bring in KDE (which happily distributes GPLv3 software too) in your poor attempts at FUD. Cut it .

I am only interested in the story about the strange legal interpretation (the "Dutch museum thing").