Re: @bombastic bob - Says it all
If you use a GPL3 library somewhere, they have to be able to replace it somehow
Err, where does it say that ?
Yes, if they replace it then you can't make the system break because they replaced it - but you don't have to engineer the system such that they can actually replace it. You can build a unit with the board embedded in epoxy and no diagnostics/ICP port - but as long as you provide the source code on request and don't do something like apply code signing, then you are not breaching GPL.
Which means that the library could be replaced by one giving the user effective access to the system with the privileges of the original library
Now thats' a different argument which was not obvious (to me) from your previous posting.
But of course, no-one is forcing anyone to use GPL code. If you don't like the terms for using (for free) someone else's work, then you are free to do it some other way. Similarly, no-one if forced to release their work under GPL - they can use whatever licence (or not release it at all) for their own work.
And of course, you've given one very good reason that some people do like GPL code. The manufacturer of the equipment obviously took a decision that using the GPL library saved them enough cost/effort to justify the downsides for them. They were absolutely not in any way forced to use that library - it was a choice (presumably commercial) to accept the downsides in return for getting to use someone else's work for nothing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
