Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!tornado.fastwebnet.it!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 07:50:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-9; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Netone-Mailscanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-Netone-Mailscanner: Found to be clean
X-Netone-Mailscanner-From: tar...@netone.net.tr
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 27
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 08:46:46 +0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, 
that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, 
it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who 
contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead 
maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' 
permission.
But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it 
will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other 
Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3 
and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.

So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel 
Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and 
suggestions about this idea ?

Regards,

Tarkan Erimer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!
feed.tweaknews.nl!217.73.144.44.MISMATCH!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!
130.59.10.21.MISMATCH!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsserver.news.garr.it!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Neil Brown <ne...@suse.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 08:00:16 +0200
Message-ID: <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: message from Tarkan Erimer on Saturday June 9
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1
X-Face: [Gw_3E*Gng}4rRrKRYotwlE?.2|**#s9D<ml'fY1Vw+@XfR[fRCsUoP?K6bt3YD\ui5Fh?f
	LONpR';(ql)VM_TQ/<l_^D3~B:z$\YC7gUCuC=sYm/80G=$tt"98mr8(l))QzVKCk$6~gldn~*FK9x
	8`;pM{3S8679sP+MbP,72<3_PIH-$I&iaiIb|hV1d%cYg))BmI)AZ
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 40
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 15:57:55 +1000
X-Original-Message-ID: <18026.16739.228277.938421@notabene.brown>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 
> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, 
> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, 
> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who 
> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead 
> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' 
> permission.

You don't need the permission of maintainers.  You need the permission
of copyright owners.  The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright.  Their estate
probably can.  I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
impossible. 

> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it 
> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other 
> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3 
> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
> 
> So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel 
> Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and 
> suggestions about this idea ?

Dual licensing is no easier.  It means it is licensed to be used under
either license.  You already have permission to use it under GPLv2.
So to get a dual license, you precisely need to get access under GPLv3
i.e. to convince copyright owners to make that license grant.  A thing
that we have already agreed is at least "hard".

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out04b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
cycny01.gnilink.net!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmnpeer01.ams!news.highwinds-media.com!
feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbg...@lug-owl.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 09:20:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Mail-Followup-To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TsHlYwxJd0kekxFz"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Operating-System: Linux mail 2.6.18-4-686 
X-Gpg-Fingerprint: 250D 3BCF 7127 0D8C A444  A961 1DBD 5E75 8399 E1BB
X-Gpg-Key: wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 60
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 09:12:31 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070609071231.GL2649@lug-owl.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org


On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <ne...@suse.de> wrote:
> On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
> > As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V=
2=20
> > and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> > So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others=
,=20
> > that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3,=
=20
> > it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who=20
> > contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead=20
> > maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers'=20
> > permission.
>=20
> You don't need the permission of maintainers.  You need the permission
> of copyright owners.  The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
> Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright.  Their estate
> probably can.  I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
> everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
> impossible.=20

And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner
own?  For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small
number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to
new APIs.  Ask them all, I think?

MfG, JBG

      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbg...@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:             God put me on earth to accomplish a certain numbe=
r of
the second  :            things. Right now I am so far behind I will never =
die.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!zen.net.uk!
dedekind.zen.co.uk!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:50:05 +0200
Message-ID: <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-9; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Netone-Mailscanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-Netone-Mailscanner: Found to be clean
X-Netone-Mailscanner-From: tar...@netone.net.tr
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 40
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <466BB9B0.5030908@netone.net.tr>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown> <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <ne...@suse.de> wrote:
>   
>> On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
>>     
>>> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 
>>> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
>>> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, 
>>> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, 
>>> it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who 
>>> contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead 
>>> maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' 
>>> permission.
>>>       
>> You don't need the permission of maintainers.  You need the permission
>> of copyright owners.  The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
>> Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright.  Their estate
>> probably can.  I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
>> everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
>> impossible. 
>>     
>
> And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner
> own?  For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small
> number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to
> new APIs.  Ask them all, I think?
>
> MfG, JBG
>
>   

And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can 
hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the 
copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at 
this point for copyright holding ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:10:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: da...@lang.hm
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-9; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Netone-Mailscanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-Netone-Mailscanner: Found to be clean
X-Netone-Mailscanner-From: tar...@netone.net.tr
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 53
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:00:28 +0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <466BCBBC.90305@netone.net.tr>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown> 
<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr> 
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

da...@lang.hm wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300
>> From: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
>> To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>>
>> Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>>>  On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <ne...@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> >  On Saturday June 9, tar...@netone.net.tr wrote:
>>> > > >  As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with 
>>> the GPL > >  V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
>>> > >  So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus 
>>> and > >  others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's 
>>> License to > >  GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the 
>>> maintainers permission > >  who contributed to the Linux Kernel and 
>>> there are a lot of lost or > >  dead maintainers. Which makes it 
>>> impossible to get all the > >  maintainers' permission.
>>> > > >  You don't need the permission of maintainers.  You need the 
>>> permission
>>> >  of copyright owners.  The two groups overlap, but are not the same.
>>> >  Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright.  Their estate
>>> >  probably can.  I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get
>>> >  everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically
>>> >  impossible. >
>>>  And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner
>>>  own?  For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small
>>>  number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to
>>>  new APIs.  Ask them all, I think?
>>>
>>>  MfG, JBG
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner 
>> can hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the 
>> copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders 
>> at this point for copyright holding ?
>
> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>
> David Lang
Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea 
to replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting 
such  90+ years!

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: da...@lang.hm
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:10:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
X-X-Sender: dl...@asgard.lang.hm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 26
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6675@asgard.lang.hm>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
 <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:

>> >  And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can 
>> >  hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the 
>> >  copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at 
>> >  this point for copyright holding ?
>>
>>  I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
>>
>>  David Lang
> Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to 
> replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such  90+ 
> years!

exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active 
developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 
(including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it 
really doesn't matter how hard it is to deal with the people who you can't 
contact.

David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: "debian developer" <debian...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:00:17 +0200
Message-ID: <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: "da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 28
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: "Tarkan Erimer" <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	"Andrew Morton" <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torva...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu,
	g...@kroah.com
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:25:55 +0530
X-Original-Message-ID: <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	 <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	 <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	 <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> >> >  And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
> >> >  hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> >> >  copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
> >> >  this point for copyright holding ?
> >>
> >>  I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> >>
> >>  David Lang
> > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to
> > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such  90+
> > years!
>
> exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it

Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
community can discuss the future steps.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!erode.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:10:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 44
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: "da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:05:31 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070610160531.GA12179@kroah.com>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown> <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> 
<466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr> 
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr> 
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
>  On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > >> >  And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner 
> > can
> > >> >  hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> > >> >  copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders 
> > at
> > >> >  this point for copyright holding ?
> > >>
> > >>  I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> > >>
> > >>  David Lang
> > > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea 
> > to
> > > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such  
> > 90+
> > > years!
> >
> > exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> > developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> > (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
> 
>  Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
>  the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
>  should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
>  community can discuss the future steps.

"future steps"?  Hah.

My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel
code for all of the reasons I have said in the past, plus a few more
(what, I can make an "industrial" product but not a commercial one?
That's horrible...)

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!
feed.tweaknews.nl!213.132.189.1.MISMATCH!multikabel.net!feed10.multikabel.net!
tudelft.nl!binfeed1.tudelft.nl!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsserver.news.garr.it!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:30:15 +0200
Message-ID: <8uzoX-46I-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uwAF-87t-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 26
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu,
	g...@kroah.com
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101025330.20321@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>  <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
  <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>  <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <466C0901.4000...@netone.net.tr>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> > 
> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > the final draft of GPLv3.

I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the 
disaster that were the earlier drafts.

I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.

I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at 
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for 
licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about 
"tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about 
Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument 
seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push 
the GPLv3).

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!
newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:40:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8uzyx-4iH-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uwAF-87t-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uzoX-46I-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 28
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101029300.20321@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>  <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
  <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>  <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <466C0901.4000...@netone.net.tr>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101025330.20...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, 
> though.

Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that 
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as 
v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two 
kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at 
least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at 
all.

I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to 
open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my 
predictions.

				Linus

(*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I 
walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their 
horrible previous Java license.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:50:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8uzIb-4uX-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uwAF-87t-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uzoX-46I-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 11
X-Original-Cc: Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu,
	g...@kroah.com
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:47:36 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070610184736.464d1e32@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de>
	<466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<466C0901.4000...@netone.net.tr>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101025330.20...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about 
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about 

GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
yours 8)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: "debian developer" <debian...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:40:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8uBqE-79N-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uwAF-87t-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uzoX-46I-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uzIb-4uX-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: "Alan Cox" <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <a...@linux-foundation.org>, g...@kroah.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 22
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:02:42 +0530
X-Original-Message-ID: <f24d23310706101232l335fbf1amff832c00339aa...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de>
	 <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	 <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <466C0901.4000...@netone.net.tr>
	 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101025330.20...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	 <20070610184736.464d1...@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On 6/10/07, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> > "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
>
> GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
              ^^^^^^^^

Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
I agree with Linus that software licenses should have their influence
only on the software part and leave the freedom of the hardware on
which the software runs to the hardware manufacturers.

But was it the goal of GPLv2??

And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know
his opinions....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:10:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8uBTH-80g-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uwAF-87t-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uzoX-46I-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uzIb-4uX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uBqE-79N-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: "debian developer" <debian...@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 12
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: "Alan Cox" <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torva...@linux-foundation.org>, g...@kroah.com
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:02:18 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070610130218.fb510031.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de>
	<466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<466C0901.4000...@netone.net.tr>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101025330.20...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070610184736.464d1...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<f24d23310706101232l335fbf1amff832c00339aa...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:02:42 +0530 "debian developer" <debian...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know
> his opinions....

I have yet to see Linus make a statement on these matters with which
I didn't agree.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!
feed.tweaknews.nl!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!news.germany.com!
news.belwue.de!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsserver.news.garr.it!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:50:14 +0200
Message-ID: <8uCwu-ko-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uwAF-87t-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uzoX-46I-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uzIb-4uX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uBqE-79N-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: "debian developer" <debian...@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 20
X-Original-Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <a...@linux-foundation.org>, g...@kroah.com
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:54:58 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070610215458.0319cdce@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de>
	<466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<466C0901.4000...@netone.net.tr>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101025330.20...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070610184736.464d1...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<f24d23310706101232l335fbf1amff832c00339aa...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

> > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
>               ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.

They've never been given permission and there is no caselaw yet, doesn't
mean they are allowed to.

GPL2 actually in some ways was saner than GPL3 on this - you could
sensibly argue the key was part of the source/build environment but it
didn't then get muddled in with questions like ROMs which the new GPL3
wording is a bit messy about still.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out04a.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!tornado.fastwebnet.it!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:50:05 +0200
Message-ID: <8uJ4N-1Sj-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uwAF-87t-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uzoX-46I-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uzIb-4uX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uBqE-79N-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8uCwu-ko-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 33
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:42:34 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070611034234.GA32558@kroah.com>
X-Original-References: <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr> 
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr> 
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com> 
<466C0901.4000...@netone.net.tr> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706101025330.20...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<20070610184736.464d1...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<f24d23310706101232l335fbf1amff832c00339aa...@mail.gmail.com> 
<20070610215458.0319c...@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 09:54:58PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
> >               ^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> > theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
> 
> They've never been given permission and there is no caselaw yet, doesn't
> mean they are allowed to.

Are you sure?  Tivo went and got a FSF "verification" of their system a
number of years ago and got their blessing that what they were doing was
just fine with regards to the GPLv2.

This is one reason Tivo's lawyers were so perplexed when the FSF then
turned around and made their company's name into a term to describe DRM
stuff and started preaching how it was so bad.  It seemed to be in
direct crontridiction from what they had previously been told by the
very same people.

Now yes, they didn't consult with the individual owners of the kernel,
who might hold different views as to if v2 covers keys like you have
stated in the past, but the FSF's position in this area does hold some
ammount of weight, especially in court if it were to come to that.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: "debian developer" <debian...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:10:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: "Greg KH" <g...@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 43
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: "da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	"Tarkan Erimer" <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	"Andrew Morton" <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torva...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:37:11 +0530
X-Original-Message-ID: <f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	 <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	 <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	 <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On 6/10/07, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> >  On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >  And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner
> > > can
> > > >> >  hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> > > >> >  copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders
> > > at
> > > >> >  this point for copyright holding ?
> > > >>
> > > >>  I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> > > >>
> > > >>  David Lang
> > > > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea
> > > to
> > > > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such
> > > 90+
> > > > years!
> > >
> > > exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> > > developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> > > (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it
> >
> >  Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> >  the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> >  should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> >  community can discuss the future steps.
>
> "future steps"?  Hah.
>
> My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel
> code for all of the reasons I have said in the past, plus a few more
> (what, I can make an "industrial" product but not a commercial one?

     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What exactly in GPLv3 forbids you from making a commercial product?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 61
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: "da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:41:10 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070612184110.GB7980@kroah.com>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown> <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> 
<466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com> 
<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> 
<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:37:11PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
>  On 6/10/07, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> > >  On 6/10/07, da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> >  And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright 
> > owner
> > > > can
> > > > >> >  hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> > > > >> >  copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law 
> > orders
> > > > at
> > > > >> >  this point for copyright holding ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  David Lang
> > > > > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better 
> > idea
> > > > to
> > > > > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting 
> > such
> > > > 90+
> > > > > years!
> > > >
> > > > exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active
> > > > developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3
> > > > (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better 
> > it
> > >
> > >  Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > >  the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers
> > >  should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel
> > >  community can discuss the future steps.
> >
> > "future steps"?  Hah.
> >
> > My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel
> > code for all of the reasons I have said in the past, plus a few more
> > (what, I can make an "industrial" product but not a commercial one?
> 
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  What exactly in GPLv3 forbids you from making a commercial product?

Nothing "forbids" me, it's just the artifical distinstion of the two is,
in my opinion, stupid and foolish.  You are trying to define use-cases
to justify their notion that you must give up the hardware keys for one
type of device, yet not for another.

Even the people that feel that v2 says you need to give up the keys
think this is dumb.  But we've been through all of that before (see
previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers hate it, it
all still applys to the final draft.)

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!
robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:00:15 +0200
Message-ID: <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 17
X-Original-Cc: debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:53:57 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orir9smp3u.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
	<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:

> (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
> hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)

You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:30:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 27
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>, debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
 <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> <f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
 <orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:
> 
> > (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
> > hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
> 
> You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)

I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and 
cannot read or think for themselves.

Any time you disagree with the FSF, you "misunderstand" (insert 
condescending voice) the issue. 

_Please_ don't continue that idiocy. Disagreement and thinking that the 
FSF is controlling and putting its fingers where they don't belong is 
_not_ misunderstanding. It's just not "blind and unquestioning obedience".

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed-0.progon.net!
progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:20:12 +0200
Message-ID: <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 73
X-Original-Cc: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>, debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:11:16 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <or7iq7mx7f.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
	<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
	<orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
>> > hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
>> 
>> You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)

> I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and 
> cannot read or think for themselves.

Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
license.  Based on the public comments, the wording was improved.  I'd
like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the
earlier drafts are no longer an issue.  Is it not so?

Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of
two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or
preconceptions, or ill intentions.  I'd rather believe it's the
former.

Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
models better your intentions than GPLv3.

Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris
very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting
others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect
others' freedoms, has never been what moved you.  Rather, you seem to
perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution,
rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires.  In
fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago.

With this different frame of mind, it is not surprising at all that
you don't find GPLv3 a better license.  With different goals in mind,
reasonable people can reach different conclusions.  But claiming that
GPLv3 is changing the spirit of the license, or that it prohibits
certain kinds of software, is plain false.  In fact, the spirit has
always been described in its preamble, and it didn't change at all:
it's all about respecting others' freedoms.

Sure, this evokes a number of other nice behaviors in various players,
and it's clear to me that it's in these other nice behaviors that you
seek when you choose GPLv2.  There's nothing inherently wrong in that.

However, it seems to me that GPLv3 would do an even better job at
serving these goals than GPLv2, even if the holes v3 plugs that
enabled players to disrespect others' freedoms might steer away the
participants who are not willing to contribute, to really be part of
your community.  It's not like you lose much.

But the new defenses against disrespect for freedoms introduced in
GPLv3 may turn out to be very helpful, not only in protecting your
community from external threats, but also in strengthening
participation, as the benefits of participation outweight the
perceived costs of respecting others' freedoms.

It sure seems to me that trading some threats and non-contributors for
some more-committed participants is a good idea.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:20:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vIq4-6Vz-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 19
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:14:32 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070613211432.GH10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com> 
<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> 
<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com> 
<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com> <orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:11:16PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
> agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
> models better your intentions than GPLv3.

I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same
spirit as the GPL v2.  I guess it comes down to what people thought the
spirit of the GPL v2 was.  There certainly seems to be a variety of
opinions on that, and I am not sure the FSF's opinion on it agrees with
what most others believe, but that would be rather difficult to
determine.

--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:40:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8vIJq-7k3-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 110
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>, debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131415090.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
 <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> <f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com> <orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
> license.  Based on the public comments, the wording was improved.  I'd
> like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the
> earlier drafts are no longer an issue.  Is it not so?

No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a 
misunderstanding. Now it's been limited to "consumer devices" (after I 
pointed out some of the _obvious_ problems with the original language), 
and the only people who called anything a "misunderstanding" were the ones 
that tried to point to *other* points in the license altogether (ie there 
was also a "drm section", which didn't really seem to say anything much at 
all).

Rms calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I 
find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo 
never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact 
that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content 
producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware.

The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not cover boot loaders and 
hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware 
can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only 
a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care.

> Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of
> two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or
> preconceptions, or ill intentions.  I'd rather believe it's the
> former.

No, it was not the former. And I think the whole "the kernel developers 
misunderstand the license" crap that the FSF was saying (several times) 
was very trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of 
the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by 
pointing to *another* part of the license.

And you're just parrotting their idiotic line.

> Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
> agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
> models better your intentions than GPLv3.

And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I "misunderstood" the 
"spirit of the GPL".

Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better 
than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* 
things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, 
does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the 
license.

I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is 
the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, 
and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't 
think so.

> Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris
> very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting
> others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect
> others' freedoms, has never been what moved you.  Rather, you seem to
> perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution,
> rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires.  In
> fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago.

I have said *exactly* that many many times.

The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and 
you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.

I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's 
what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies) 
can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair.

The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a 
reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_ 
confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they 
did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because 
the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do.

> In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it 
> didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms.

That's a lot of bullshit. You are apparently the grand poobah, and can 
decide _which_ freedoms and for _what_ others' that matter.

I respect peoples freedoms too. I just disagree with the FSF on what that
slippery word means.

The fact that you are unable to even apparently fathom this fundamental 
issue, and that the FSF thinks that they own the definition of "freedom" 
is _your_ problem.

You're acting like some Alice-in-Wonderland character, saying that your 
definition of words is the only one that matter. And that others are 
"confused". Read up on your humpty-dumpty some day. 

I'm damn fed up with the FSF being the "protector of freedoms", and also 
feeling that they can define what those freedoms mean.

The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what 
the words mean to suit their agenda.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:00:15 +0200
Message-ID: <8vJ2T-7I0-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIJq-7k3-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 23
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:57:43 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070613225743.42b80aef@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de>
	<466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
	<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
	<orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131415090.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

> find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo 
> never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact 

Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
interpretation.

> The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what 
> the words mean to suit their agenda.

Agreed - everyone contributed to the kernel based upon the GPLv2. Lots of
different reasons, lots of different viewpoints about GPL2 v  GPL3, DRM ,
Treacherous Computing, etc. The commonality is not political, not a
grand plan, not a grand unified social agenda but a bunch of people for
whom the GPLv2 was an acceptable license for furthering their intentions
whether that is education for all, a shared commons or just making a
quick buck

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:10:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIJq-7k3-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJ2T-7I0-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 66
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
 <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> 
 <f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com> <orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131415090.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <20070613225743.42b80...@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo 
> > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact 
> 
> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> interpretation.

Well, even the FSF lawyers did, but one of the reasons I never wanted to 
do the copyright assignments(*) is exactly because I think people need to 
make their own judgments on what the GPLv2 means. In the end, the only 
thing that really matters is what a judge says (after appeals etc), and 
the fact is, any license will always have gray areas where people disagree 
about interpretation.

And I actually am of the very firm opinion that a world with gray areas 
(and purple, and pink, and green) is a hell of a lot better than one where 
everything is black-and-white. Only lawyers want a black-and-white world.

So I would actually *encourage* other people to sue over their GPLv2 
interpretations, as they have done in Germany (and as IBM has done in the 
US). I'd sue based on _my_ reading of it, but hey, while my opinion is 
obviously always correct, I recognize that I live in a world where not 
everybody else always sees that.

[ (*) Obviously, the *biggest* reason not to do copyright assignments is 
  that they are just a total pain in the ass to do, and cause tons of 
  totally pointless paperwork. So "Linus is lazy and not interested in 
  being a lawyer" is obviously the primary reason for the lack of 
  assignments. I'm just much happier with people owning their own code 
  outright. ]

Of course, I also realize that suing people over license violations is a 
big pain in the ass, and in that sense while I "encourage" people to 
assert their own copyrights, I would obviously also say that it's almost 
certainly not worth doing if it's in a "gray" area. But that, in the end, 
has to be the copyright owners own decision!

> > The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what 
> > the words mean to suit their agenda.
> 
> Agreed - everyone contributed to the kernel based upon the GPLv2. Lots of
> different reasons, lots of different viewpoints about GPL2 v  GPL3, DRM ,
> Treacherous Computing, etc. The commonality is not political, not a
> grand plan, not a grand unified social agenda but a bunch of people for
> whom the GPLv2 was an acceptable license for furthering their intentions
> whether that is education for all, a shared commons or just making a
> quick buck

Indeed. And it's _fine_ to even be in it "just to make a quick buck". We 
do want all kinds of input. I think the community is much healthier having 
lots of different reasons for people wanting to be involved, rather than 
concentrating on just some specific reason.

For some it's the technology. For some it's the license. For some it's 
just a thing to pass boredom. Others like to learn. Whatever. It's all 
good!

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!
feed.tweaknews.nl!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!
newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed2.scan-plus.net!newsfeed.ision.net!
newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:40:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8vJFt-lm-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIq4-6Vz-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 43
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:38:14 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orodjjlbu1.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
	<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
	<orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070613211432.GH10...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:

> I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same
> spirit as the GPL v2.  I guess it comes down to what people thought the
> spirit of the GPL v2 was.

So let's go back to the preamble, that provides motivations and some
guidance as to the interpretation of the legal text (i.e., the spirit
of the license):

  [...] the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your
  freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software
  is free for all its users. [...]

  [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
  the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
  this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get
  it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of
  it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
  anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
  rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
  for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
  it.

  [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
  for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have


Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
this spirit?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!
newsfeed.freenet.de!news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:10:12 +0200
Message-ID: <8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIq4-6Vz-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJFt-lm-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 85
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> <f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com> <orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20070613211432.GH10...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
 <orodjjlbu1....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
>   [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
>   the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>   this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get
>   it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of
>   it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
> 
>   To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
>   anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
>   rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
>   for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
>   it.
> 
>   [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
>   for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
> 
> 
> Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
> this spirit?

What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Can you prove that God doesn't 
exist?"

The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says 
that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.

So the whole "to protect these rights, we take away other rigths" argument 
hinges on the false premise that the new language in GPLv3 is somehow 
needed. It's not. You still had the right to distribute the software (and 
modify it), even if the *hardware* is limited to only one version.

In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted, 
and yes, I think that violates the spirit of the GPLv2 preamble!

Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can 
not use this software to make a weapon". Do you see the problem? It 
restricts peoples rights, would you agree? Would you _also_ agree that it 
doesn't actually follow that "To protect your rights" logic AT ALL?

And this is exactly where the GPLv3 *diverges* from the above logic. If I 
build hardware, and sell it with software installed, you can still copy 
and modify the software. You may not do so within the confines of the 
hardware I built, but the hardware was never under the license in the 
first place.

In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it protects 
them. It does *not* cause any additional stated freedoms - quite the 
reverse. It tries to free up stuff that was never mentioned in the first 
place.

And then the FSF has the gall to call themselves the "protector of 
freedoms", and claim that everybody else is evil. What a crock. 

In other words, if you want to argue for the changes in GPLv3, you need to 
CHANGE THE PREAMBLE TOO! You should change:

	When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
	price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
	have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
	this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
	if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
	in new free programs, that you can do so in place on your devices, 
        even if those devices weren't licensed under the GPL;  and that 
        you know you can do these things.

where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if 
those devices weren't licensed under the GPL".

That wasn't there in the original. Yet it's what the GPLv3 tries to shove 
down our throats in the name of "freedom".

I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last six 
years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going on. And 
it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes "protecting your 
freedom" is *anything*but*!

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!
feeder1-1.proxad.net!oleane.net!oleane!news.ecp.fr!news.newsland.it!
news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:20:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8vKie-1rS-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIJq-7k3-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 144
X-Original-Cc: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>, debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:11:33 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orir9rlaai.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
	<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
	<orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131415090.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
>> license.  Based on the public comments, the wording was improved.  I'd
>> like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the
>> earlier drafts are no longer an issue.  Is it not so?

> No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a 
> misunderstanding.

It was claimed that GPLv3 would forbid implementations of DRM.  That's
just plain false.  If you don't think so, please show what terms in
the latest draft prohibit DRM (as opposed to merely making it
ineffective, a necessary consequence of abiding by the spirit of all
GNU GPLs)

> It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF
> even acknowledged that.

Another misunderstanding.  The FSF never said TiVo didn't do anything
wrong.  It only said it didn't think there was a license violation.  I
personally disagree with that assessment, but IANAL.

Anyhow, deciding whether it's right or wrong is not the same as
deciding whether it's legal or illegal.  Law doesn't define what's
right or wrong.  That's what morals and ethics do.

> want to protect the integrity of that hardware.

> The kernel license covers the *kernel*.

When they choose to include a copy of the kernel in their hardware
that they can modify but others can't, they're failing to comply with
the spirit of the license.  For brevity, I won't repeat the quotes
from the GPLv2 preamble, that I just included in the message I sent to
Lennart Sorensen in this same thread.  Can you justify how you came to
the conclusion (if you did) that TiVo is abiding by the spirit of the
license?

>> Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of
>> two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or
>> preconceptions, or ill intentions.  I'd rather believe it's the
>> former.

> No, it was not the former.

Wow, I didn't see that coming.  Public admission of ill intentions?
;-) :-D :-P

> And I think the whole "the kernel developers misunderstand the
> license" crap that the FSF was saying (several times) was very
> trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of
> the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by
> pointing to *another* part of the license.

Let me see if I got this right.  There was a section entitled
"3. Digital Restrictions Management" in GPLv3dd1.  Are you saying
that, when people complained about the DRM clause, they actually meant
the provisions in "1. Source Code", that established a requirement to
include the source code corresponding to functional signatures, namely
the signing keys, as part of the corresponding source code?

> And you're just parrotting their idiotic line.

Please watch your tone.  If you find offense at the allegedly
condescending tone in which the FSF says "misunderstanding", how do
you expect me and the FSF to take this?

It is also odd that you claim the right to be entitled to your own
opinion and reading about stuff, while denying myself the same right.
Please don't do that.  I have a mind of my own, and the fact that I
reach similar conclusions doesn't make me a parrot.  Even more so when
I actually have some influence on those conclusions.

>> Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never
>> agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2
>> models better your intentions than GPLv3.

> And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I "misunderstood" the 
> "spirit of the GPL".

> Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better 
> than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* 
> things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, 
> does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the 
> license.

> I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is 
> the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, 
> and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't 
> think so.

You are definitely confused.  You're talking about the legal terms,
while I'm talking about the spirit.  The legal terms tried to reflect
the spirit as best as they could, but they left some holes.  Some
people found them and started exploiting them.

Sure, if you want to leave those holes unplugged in your code, that's
your decision.  I don't doubt that the GPLv2 legal terms fit the bill
for you.  I think GPLv3 would do even better in this regard.  But none
of this is about the spirit of the GPL.  Claiming GPLv3 changes the
spirit is totally missing the point of what the spirit amounts to.
The spirit is described in the preamble, it's not the legal terms.

> The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat"
> license,

Ok, let's explore this argument.  In what sense is it tit-for-tat?
What is tit-for-tat about it?  What is the payback an author who
releases software under the GPL can legitimately expect to get?

>> In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it 
>> didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms.

> That's a lot of bullshit. You are apparently the grand poobah, and can 
> decide _which_ freedoms and for _what_ others' that matter.

The freedoms I'm talking about are very clearly described in the
spirit (preamble) of the license you chose for your project.  Go look
at the preamble one more time, "grand poobah" ;-)

  [...] the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your
  freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software
  is free for all its users [...]

  [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
  have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge
  for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can
  get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use
  pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do
  these things.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:20:15 +0200
Message-ID: <8vKij-1rS-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIJq-7k3-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJ2T-7I0-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 27
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:15:42 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orejkfla3l.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
	<20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
	<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
	<orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131415090.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070613225743.42b80...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

>> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo 
>> > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact 

>> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
>> interpretation.

> Well, even the FSF lawyers did,

Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
Only courts of law can do that.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIq4-6Vz-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJFt-lm-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 128
X-Original-Cc: Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:49:23 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <or8xanl8jg.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com>
	<f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com>
	<orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070613211432.GH10...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
	<orodjjlbu1....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
>> the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>> this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get
>> it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of
>> it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
>> 
>> To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
>> anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
>> rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
>> for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
>> it.
>> 
>> [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
>> for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>> 
>> 
>> Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
>> this spirit?

> What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Can you prove that God doesn't 
> exist?"

By this reasoning, it sounds like you've been claiming that "God does
exist", even though you can't prove it.

It shouldn't be anywhere that difficult to show that the GPLv3 fails
to meet the spirit of the GPLs.  You just have to show a single
counter-example.  Since there are so many objections to the changes,
it shouldn't be that hard.  Can you at least try?

> The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says 
> that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.

Oh, good, let's take this one.

  if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
  you must give the recipients all the rights that you have

So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.  

TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.

It doesn't give the recipients the same right.

Oops.

Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me.

Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit.

> In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted, 

That's correct.  They don't need to be restricted.  The whole idea of
copyleft, implemented through the GPL, is not based on needs, but
rather on the wish to defend the freedoms established in the preamble
from those who would rather not respect them.

Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?

Do you deny that they can still do it themselves?

> Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can 
> not use this software to make a weapon".

This would make GPLv3 a non-Free Software license.

But the GPLv3 last call draft doesn't say anything along these lines.

You can use the software as much as you like, even in DVRs, and even
to implement DRM in them, as long as you respect the users' freedoms
to change and share the software.  Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it
is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the
device, you must tell the recipient how to do it.  Otherwise, the
freedom to modify the program is being too severely limited.

And, in the particular case of TiVo, it's a case of distributing
incomplete source code, of refraining from including functional
portions of the source code.

> In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it
> protects them.

While you look at it from the point of view of TiVo, who wants to be
free to prohibit people from modifying the workings of the device it
sells while it can still modify it itself, and it does that in order
to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing
things they're legally entitled to do, I see a lot more prohibitions
than freedoms in what TiVo does.  I don't understand why you'd stand
up for it.  Is it more important that a single company be allowed to
impose prohibitions on others in order for its business model to work,
than to maintain the spirit of hacking and sharing that enabled Free
Software and Linux to flourish?

Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that
stopped people from modifying Linux in them?

> where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if 
> those devices weren't licensed under the GPL".

You're mistakenly focusing on the device.  As you say, the device is
not under the license.

What's under the license is the software in it.  And that license
spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the
software.

> I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last
> six years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going
> on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes
> "protecting your freedom" is *anything*but*!

Is this why you're overreacting?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!
robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKij-1rS-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 47
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:46:15 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706131946.15714.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<orejkfla3l....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because
> >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The
> >> > fact
> >>
> >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> >> interpretation.
> >
> > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
>
> Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
> prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
> and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
> Only courts of law can do that.

Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did is 
entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what they 
*DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever software they 
want on their hardware. They have that right - its the "Free Software 
Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. 
TiVO never stopped people from copying, modifying or distributing the code - 
what they did was say "The code is GPL'd, the hardware is restricted" - 
ie: "You can do what you want with the code, but you can only run compiled 
version of it that we provide on our hardware". Why is that legal? Because 
TiVO produces the hardware and sells it to you with a certain *LICENSE* - 
because it does contain hardware covered under any number of patents. That 
license grants you the right to use the patents - in this case algorithms - 
provided you comply with the terms of the license. (Just like the GPL gives 
you the right to copy, modify and distribute GPL'd code as long as you comply 
with its terms)

If you believe otherwise then you are sadly mistaken. Now stop parroting the 
FSF's worn and tired tripe.

DRH
PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting 
kicked out of the FSF-LA

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:50:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8vLHh-3pq-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 202
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:42:02 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706132042.02728.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<or8xanl8jg....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
<snip>
> > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF
> > says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.
>
> Oh, good, let's take this one.
>
>   if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
>   you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>
> So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
>
> TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.
>
> It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
>
> Oops.
>
> Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me.
>
> Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit.

Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that doesn't fit 
your preconceived beliefs? TiVO gives you every right to the Linux kernel 
that they recieved. What they don't give you the right to do is use modified 
versions on their *HARDWARE* - which they have *NEVER* given you any rights 
to, except for "normal use". (And no, it isn't legal to put those 200G hard 
drives in your TiVO no matter what you think) 

> > In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted,
>
> That's correct.  They don't need to be restricted.  The whole idea of
> copyleft, implemented through the GPL, is not based on needs, but
> rather on the wish to defend the freedoms established in the preamble
> from those who would rather not respect them.
>
> Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
> from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?

Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on 
their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* 
covered by the GPL.

Do you understand that, or do I need to break out the finger-puppets next ?

> Do you deny that they can still do it themselves?
>
> > Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can
> > not use this software to make a weapon".
>
> This would make GPLv3 a non-Free Software license.
>
> But the GPLv3 last call draft doesn't say anything along these lines.
>
> You can use the software as much as you like, even in DVRs, and even
> to implement DRM in them, as long as you respect the users' freedoms
> to change and share the software.  Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it
> is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the
> device, you must tell the recipient how to do it.  Otherwise, the
> freedom to modify the program is being too severely limited.

And this unnaturally restricts the freedom of hardware manufacturers. If they 
add a custom, internal connector so a repair shop can restore the hardware to 
its *FACTORY* state then it is "possible to install modified versions", 
provided the person doing it has the specialized hardware needed.

And this is what the FSF, RMS and yes, *YOU*, Alexandre, fail to realize - the 
GPL covers *ONLY* the software. It has *ZERO* legal standing when applied to 
hardware. Not even the most draconian of MS EULA's tries to apply itself to 
the hardware.

In the case of 99% of the hardware targeted by the clause of the GPLv3 you 
elucidate on, the "ability to install modified versions of the software" was 
*NOT* intended for that use, nor was it intended for *ANYONE* *EXCEPT* 
trained service personell to have *ACCESS* to that functionality. Arguing 
otherwise is just idiotic - I have never found a piece of "high tech" 
hardware (like a TiVO) that was designed for the end-user to modify. (yes, 
installing a new version of the linux kernel is "modifying" the system)

> And, in the particular case of TiVo, it's a case of distributing
> incomplete source code, of refraining from including functional
> portions of the source code.

And? They distribute the kernel source - as they recieved it - in compliance 
with the GPL. Their additions - whether they be "modules" or just the UI - do 
not, necessarily, fall under the GPL. (Yes, there have been discussions about 
whether a kernel module is a derived work, but most of the time those 
discussions ended "Legally they aren't, even though I feel they should be")

> > In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it
> > protects them.
>
> While you look at it from the point of view of TiVo, who wants to be
> free to prohibit people from modifying the workings of the device it
> sells while it can still modify it itself, and it does that in order
> to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing
> things they're legally entitled to do, I see a lot more prohibitions
> than freedoms in what TiVo does.  I don't understand why you'd stand
> up for it.  Is it more important that a single company be allowed to
> impose prohibitions on others in order for its business model to work,
> than to maintain the spirit of hacking and sharing that enabled Free
> Software and Linux to flourish?

What "Legally Entitled" things?

And... You do realize that almost every difference between the GPLv2 and the 
GPLv3 is going to cause a hell of a lot of problems? The fact that the GPLv3 
is designed to prevent things that RMS *PERSONALLY* finds distasteful - DRM 
and the like - is a big turn-off for a *LOT* of people. (Personally I don't 
like *ANY* version of the GPL, because there are chunks I have problems with)

> Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that
> stopped people from modifying Linux in them?

But you aren't talking about a "computer" here. You're talking about a 
mass-market device that must comply with both US and International copyright 
law - and that's just a TiVO. Other devices have other laws they have to 
comply with - in the US the FCC's regulations control all radio devices, so 
if you upload a modified linux kernel to your wireless router that gives it a 
2000 foot range, you've just broken the law *AND* violated the license on the 
hardware which states that you "won't modify it or the controlling 
software" - in most cases "the controlling software" is just the firmware, 
but with modern wireless hardware, the firmware is loaded by the OS.

> > where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if
> > those devices weren't licensed under the GPL".
>
> You're mistakenly focusing on the device.  As you say, the device is
> not under the license.

But he isn't. The GPLv3 says, and I'll quote you here - "Per the GPLv3 
(paraphrased), if it is possible to install modified versions of the covered 
program in the device, you must tell the recipient how to do it."

From the latest version of the GPLv3:
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, 
authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute 
modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified 
version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure 
that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case 
prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

and:

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or 
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of 
a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is 
transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of 
how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed 
under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But 
this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains 
the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, 
the work has been installed in ROM).

So it's not just a designed in ability to run modified code - ie: running of 
modified code is a feature meant for the user to take advantage of - but even 
things like the connectors used to upload the operating software at the 
factory that people now cannot have in a device that runs GPL(v3) covered 
software unless they ship the related "Installation Information". In other 
words, companies are no longer allowed to have a completely separate license  
for hardware and software.

That, to me, reads like RMS got mad about TiVO and said "I don't like it, lets 
add a clause making it wrong to the next GPL". Hell, that *IS* what happened, 
and nothing the FSF or Eben Moglen says will convince me otherwise. It's the 
same for the bits that were added after Novell signed their agreement with 
MS. 

> What's under the license is the software in it.  And that license
> spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the
> software.

And since when did they have to enable people to use their hardware in 
violation of the licensing agreement they implicitly agree to when opening 
the package?

There is *NOTHING* stopping you from doing whatever you want with the code 
that runs on a TiVO (or any similar device). You (and everyone that thinks 
like you) are confusing a want to use the *HARDWARE* however you want with 
your GPL granted "right" to do what you want with the *SOFTWARE*.

> > I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last
> > six years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going
> > on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes
> > "protecting your freedom" is *anything*but*!
>
> Is this why you're overreacting?

No, he's making a point. RMS and the FSF, in drafting GPLv3 to include the 
language and clauses it does, is "protecting your freedom" the way a lot of 
the post 9/11 changes to the US Federal code does it. (ie: by saying "no, you 
can't do that anymore")

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vLHi-3pq-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKij-1rS-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 60
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:44:19 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614004419.GL3588@stusta.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<orejkfla3l....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because
> > >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The
> > >> > fact
> > >>
> > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> > >> interpretation.
> > >
> > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
> >
> > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
> > prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
> > and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
> > Only courts of law can do that.
> 
> Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did is 
> entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what they 
> *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever software they 
> want on their hardware. They have that right - its the "Free Software 
> Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. 
>...

The GPLv2 says:

"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code 
for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition 
files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of 
the executable."

The question is whether this includes private keys.
Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.

If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2 requires 
them to give any costumer the private keys.

Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully convince 
vendors that private keys are part of the source code if they are 
required for running the compiled binary on some hardware.

AFAIK there haven't been any court rulings on this issue, and it could 
even be that courts in different countries will decide differently.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:10:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8vM0D-43R-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vLHi-3pq-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 78
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:01:28 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706132101.28330.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614004419.GL3...@stusta.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive
> > > >> > because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even
> > > >> > acknowledged that. The fact
> > > >>
> > > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> > > >> interpretation.
> > > >
> > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
> > >
> > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
> > > prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
> > > and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
> > > Only courts of law can do that.
> >
> > Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did
> > is entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what
> > they *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever
> > software they want on their hardware. They have that right - its the
> > "Free Software Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a
> > *SOFTWARE* license. ...
>
> The GPLv2 says:
>
> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
> for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
> files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
> the executable."
>
> The question is whether this includes private keys.
> Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.
>
> If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2 requires
> them to give any costumer the private keys.
>
> Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully convince
> vendors that private keys are part of the source code if they are
> required for running the compiled binary on some hardware.

If the hardware was designed for the end-user to change the software running 
on it - including running software that it was never meant to run (ie: a 
complete webserver on cell phone) - then yes, the signing keys are a part of 
the source, as the software running on the device is designed to be updated 
by the user using the provided system.

If, on the other hand, the only "software updates" the user is expected to 
perform are the installation of newer versions of the existing code 
for "Security" or "Bug Fix" reasons then the signing keys aren't part of the 
source.

I haven't looked into what Harald Welte did, but I'd be surprised if someone 
tried following suit in America and had as much success.

>
> AFAIK there haven't been any court rulings on this issue, and it could
> even be that courts in different countries will decide differently.

Agreed.

DRH

>
> cu
> Adrian



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:10:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vM0E-43R-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKij-1rS-31@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 35
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:04:42 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orr6ofjqhh.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orejkfla3l....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:

> Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe.

Are you playing Linus' sheeple and parroting his lines just to make a
point, or are you like that all the time? ;-)

> PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting 
> kicked out of the FSF-LA

Don't worry, I'm not speaking even for FSFLA, and I'm entitled to my
own opinion.

I haven't consulted other FSFLA members about this.  This is all my
own personal opinion.

It just so happens that I'm very closely involved in the process, I've
spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I happen to share a similar
moral and ethical background with others involved in the process, so I
arrive at similar conclusions.

And then, I influence the process myself, so it's not like some of the
arguments I brought up here weren't taken into account while creating
the GPLv3, and adopted by its other proponents.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:30:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vM0E-43R-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 54
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:21:04 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706132121.04532.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orr6ofjqhh....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:04:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
> > Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe.
>
> Are you playing Linus' sheeple and parroting his lines just to make a
> point, or are you like that all the time? ;-)

Nope. I'm just tired of giving proof after proof that you're wrong and having 
you restate the same tripe.

> > PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting
> > kicked out of the FSF-LA
>
> Don't worry, I'm not speaking even for FSFLA, and I'm entitled to my
> own opinion.

Certainly. I never said otherwise. What I stated and then *implied* was that 
you are repeating the same false logic over and over again trying to make 
people believe that it isn't borked and that that false logic is exactly the 
same crap I've seen from the FSF numerous times.

> I haven't consulted other FSFLA members about this.  This is all my
> own personal opinion.

Where I am examining the facts and drawing a logical conclusion. That it 
happens to form an opinion is secondary to the truth.

> It just so happens that I'm very closely involved in the process, I've
> spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I happen to share a similar
> moral and ethical background with others involved in the process, so I
> arrive at similar conclusions.

Okay. Still doesn't explain why you have argued that the GPLv3 doesn't attempt 
to cover hardware and then provide proof that it does. 

> And then, I influence the process myself, so it's not like some of the
> arguments I brought up here weren't taken into account while creating
> the GPLv3, and adopted by its other proponents.

This is no surprise - I had a feeling this was the truth. Not that it changes 
my opinion at all. As I've said, I have never liked the GPL at all, but v2 is 
the best that exists - even though I've put together custom licenses myself, 
none of them have had the number of lawyers look at them that the GPLv2 has 
had.

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:30:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8vMk1-4rc-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vLHi-3pq-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vM0D-43R-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 88
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:24:01 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614012401.GN3588@stusta.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614004419.GL3...@stusta.de> 
<200706132101.28330.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive
> > > > >> > because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even
> > > > >> > acknowledged that. The fact
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> > > > >> interpretation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
> > > >
> > > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would
> > > > prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo did was right,
> > > > and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license.
> > > > Only courts of law can do that.
> > >
> > > Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did
> > > is entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what
> > > they *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever
> > > software they want on their hardware. They have that right - its the
> > > "Free Software Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a
> > > *SOFTWARE* license. ...
> >
> > The GPLv2 says:
> >
> > "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
> > for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
> > files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
> > the executable."
> >
> > The question is whether this includes private keys.
> > Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.
> >
> > If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2 requires
> > them to give any costumer the private keys.
> >
> > Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully convince
> > vendors that private keys are part of the source code if they are
> > required for running the compiled binary on some hardware.
> 
> If the hardware was designed for the end-user to change the software running 
> on it - including running software that it was never meant to run (ie: a 
> complete webserver on cell phone) - then yes, the signing keys are a part of 
> the source, as the software running on the device is designed to be updated 
> by the user using the provided system.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the only "software updates" the user is expected to 
> perform are the installation of newer versions of the existing code 
> for "Security" or "Bug Fix" reasons then the signing keys aren't part of the 
> source.

Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that doesn't 
fit your preconceived beliefs?

The GPL doesn't give someone distributing the software the choice of how
much to limit the freedom of the user.

Either private keys required to run the kernel on the hardware are 
always considered part of "the complete source code" or they are never 
part of it.

> I haven't looked into what Harald Welte did, but I'd be surprised if someone 
> tried following suit in America and had as much success.
>...

Harald is in Germany, and he therefore takes legal action against people 
distributing products violating his copyright on the Linux kernel
in Germany at German courts based on German laws.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:50:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vM0D-43R-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMk1-4rc-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 123
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:40:13 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706132140.13490.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132101.28330.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614012401.GN3...@stusta.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> 
wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive
> > > > > >> > because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even
> > > > > >> > acknowledged that. The fact
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> > > > > >> interpretation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
> > > > >
> > > > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US
> > > > > would prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo did
> > > > > was right, and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted
> > > > > by the license. Only courts of law can do that.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO
> > > > did is entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that
> > > > what they *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of
> > > > whatever software they want on their hardware. They have that right -
> > > > its the "Free Software Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of
> > > > version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. ...
> > >
> > > The GPLv2 says:
> > >
> > > "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
> > > for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
> > > files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
> > > the executable."
> > >
> > > The question is whether this includes private keys.
> > > Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.
> > >
> > > If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2 requires
> > > them to give any costumer the private keys.
> > >
> > > Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully convince
> > > vendors that private keys are part of the source code if they are
> > > required for running the compiled binary on some hardware.
> >
> > If the hardware was designed for the end-user to change the software
> > running on it - including running software that it was never meant to run
> > (ie: a complete webserver on cell phone) - then yes, the signing keys are
> > a part of the source, as the software running on the device is designed
> > to be updated by the user using the provided system.
> >
> > If, on the other hand, the only "software updates" the user is expected
> > to perform are the installation of newer versions of the existing code
> > for "Security" or "Bug Fix" reasons then the signing keys aren't part of
> > the source.
>
> Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that doesn't
> fit your preconceived beliefs?

Nope. Merely stating a distinction. Either a device is distributed, like the 
common PC, that is designed for the user to change and update the software 
on, or, like the PS2 it isn't designed for that. If I find a way to update my 
PS2 to run Linux and find that it doesn't want to start the "Linux Firmware" 
because I'm lacking a signing key...

In the case of a device that internally runs Linux (or any other GPL'd 
software) and wasn't designed for the end-user to change the software running 
on it then the signing keys aren't part of the source. OTOH, if I sell a PC 
running Linux that requires the kernel be signed then the signing keys *are* 
part of the source, since a PC is designed for the end-user to change the 
software running on it.

BTW, nice use of irony with that line. Makes me regret letting my fingers get 
ahead of my brain.

> The GPL doesn't give someone distributing the software the choice of how
> much to limit the freedom of the user.

Never claimed it did. I just wasn't as specific as I should have been when 
giving my examples.

> Either private keys required to run the kernel on the hardware are
> always considered part of "the complete source code" or they are never
> part of it.

No. It all depends on the use-case. If the hardware is designed for the user 
to install their own, custom versions of the code on then the signing keys 
are part of the source as defined by the GPLv2.

If, OTOH, the hardware was never meant for the end-user to install custom 
versions of the software on, then while the signing keys are still 
*technically* part of the source, in practice they are not. Why? Because in 
most of those cases the end-user isn't granted the right to install and run 
custom binaries on the hardware. If the manufacturer provided the signing 
keys they'd be facilitating the commission of a crime. (call it "Breach of 
Contract")

> > I haven't looked into what Harald Welte did, but I'd be surprised if
> > someone tried following suit in America and had as much success.
> >...
>
> Harald is in Germany, and he therefore takes legal action against people
> distributing products violating his copyright on the Linux kernel
> in Germany at German courts based on German laws.

I know this. As I said, I doubt that anyone who tried this in America would 
have the success he has had.

DRH

> cu
> Adrian



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:10:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vM0E-43R-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 21
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:04:04 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orhcpbjnqj.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orr6ofjqhh....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:

> Still doesn't explain why you have argued that the GPLv3 doesn't
> attempt to cover hardware and then provide proof that it does.

It doesn't cover hardware, in the same way that it doesn't cover
patents, and it doesn't cover pro-DRM laws.  It merely arranges, as
best as we've managed a copyright license to do, that they can't be
used as excuses (or tools) to disrespect the freedoms that the GPL
demands all licensees to respect for other users.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:10:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vM0D-43R-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMk1-4rc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 123
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:08:27 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614020827.GO3588@stusta.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132101.28330.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614012401.GN3...@stusta.de> 
<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> 
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive
> > > > > > >> > because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even
> > > > > > >> > acknowledged that. The fact
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
> > > > > > >> interpretation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US
> > > > > > would prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo did
> > > > > > was right, and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted
> > > > > > by the license. Only courts of law can do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO
> > > > > did is entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that
> > > > > what they *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of
> > > > > whatever software they want on their hardware. They have that right -
> > > > > its the "Free Software Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of
> > > > > version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. ...
> > > >
> > > > The GPLv2 says:
> > > >
> > > > "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
> > > > for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
> > > > files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
> > > > the executable."
> > > >
> > > > The question is whether this includes private keys.
> > > > Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.
> > > >
> > > > If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2 requires
> > > > them to give any costumer the private keys.
> > > >
> > > > Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully convince
> > > > vendors that private keys are part of the source code if they are
> > > > required for running the compiled binary on some hardware.
> > >
> > > If the hardware was designed for the end-user to change the software
> > > running on it - including running software that it was never meant to run
> > > (ie: a complete webserver on cell phone) - then yes, the signing keys are
> > > a part of the source, as the software running on the device is designed
> > > to be updated by the user using the provided system.
> > >
> > > If, on the other hand, the only "software updates" the user is expected
> > > to perform are the installation of newer versions of the existing code
> > > for "Security" or "Bug Fix" reasons then the signing keys aren't part of
> > > the source.
> >
> > Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that doesn't
> > fit your preconceived beliefs?
> 
> Nope. Merely stating a distinction. Either a device is distributed, like the 
> common PC, that is designed for the user to change and update the software 
> on, or, like the PS2 it isn't designed for that. If I find a way to update my 
> PS2 to run Linux and find that it doesn't want to start the "Linux Firmware" 
> because I'm lacking a signing key...
> 
> In the case of a device that internally runs Linux (or any other GPL'd 
> software) and wasn't designed for the end-user to change the software running 
> on it then the signing keys aren't part of the source. OTOH, if I sell a PC 
> running Linux that requires the kernel be signed then the signing keys *are* 
> part of the source, since a PC is designed for the end-user to change the 
> software running on it.
> 
> BTW, nice use of irony with that line. Makes me regret letting my fingers get 
> ahead of my brain.
> 
> > The GPL doesn't give someone distributing the software the choice of how
> > much to limit the freedom of the user.
> 
> Never claimed it did. I just wasn't as specific as I should have been when 
> giving my examples.
> 
> > Either private keys required to run the kernel on the hardware are
> > always considered part of "the complete source code" or they are never
> > part of it.
> 
> No. It all depends on the use-case. If the hardware is designed for the user 
> to install their own, custom versions of the code on then the signing keys 
> are part of the source as defined by the GPLv2.
> 
> If, OTOH, the hardware was never meant for the end-user to install custom 
> versions of the software on, then while the signing keys are still 
> *technically* part of the source, in practice they are not. Why? Because in 
> most of those cases the end-user isn't granted the right to install and run 
> custom binaries on the hardware. If the manufacturer provided the signing 
> keys they'd be facilitating the commission of a crime. (call it "Breach of 
> Contract")
>...

Repetition doesn't let wrong things become true.

Where does the GPLv2 talk about the distinction you are trying to make 
based on distributor intentions?     

We are talking about the GPLv2 licence text, not about what you would
personally prefer.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!
robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:30:13 +0200
Message-ID: <8vNg9-5Si-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8u29G-2Y9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8u3oV-52C-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8urhz-88N-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
|<8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIJq-7k3-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKie-1rS-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 21
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>, debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131928070.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <18026.16739.228277.938...@notabene.brown>
 <20070609071231.GL2...@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> 
 <f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com> <orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131415090.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orir9rlaai....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> Let me see if I got this right.  There was a section entitled
> "3. Digital Restrictions Management" in GPLv3dd1.  Are you saying
> that, when people complained about the DRM clause, they actually meant
> the provisions in "1. Source Code"

Yes. I said that multiple times. It was obvious. But people didn't listen.

It's now in Section 7, or whatever.

The section 3 never mattered.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:40:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vNpK-635-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vLHh-3pq-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 151
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:38:05 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <ord4zzjm5u.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or8xanl8jg....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132042.02728.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on 
> their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* 
> covered by the GPL.

Indeed, TiVO has this legal right.  But then they must not use
software under the GPLv3 in it.  And, arguably, they must not use
software under the GPLv2 either.

> In the case of 99% of the hardware targeted by the clause of the GPLv3 you 
> elucidate on, the "ability to install modified versions of the software" was 
> *NOT* intended for that use, nor was it intended for *ANYONE* *EXCEPT* 
> trained service personell to have *ACCESS* to that functionality. Arguing 
> otherwise is just idiotic - I have never found a piece of "high tech" 
> hardware (like a TiVO) that was designed for the end-user to modify. (yes, 
> installing a new version of the linux kernel is "modifying" the system)

It's about time for a change for better, wouldn't you think?

In 95% of the desktop computers, you can't make changes to the OS that
runs on it.  Whom is this good for?

> And? They distribute the kernel source - as they recieved it - in
> compliance with the GPL.

This makes it seem like you think that passing on the source code is
enough to comply with the GPL.  Check your assumptions.  It's not.

>> to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing
>> things they're legally entitled to do

> What "Legally Entitled" things?

Time shifting of any shows, creating copies of shows for personal use,
letting others do so.  Think fair use, and how TiVO software and DRM
in general gets in the way.

> And... You do realize that almost every difference between the GPLv2
> and the GPLv3 is going to cause a hell of a lot of problems?

For those who are not willing to abide by the spirit of the license,
yes.  Does it look like I'm concerned about them?  If they're willing
to look for and maybe even find holes in the license to disrespect
users' freedoms, why should I worry about the problems that plugging
these holes is going to cause them?  If they'd taken the spirit of the
GPL for what it is, instead of looking for loopholes, this improved
wording wouldn't be causing them any problems whatsoever.

> The fact that the GPLv3 is designed to prevent things that RMS
> *PERSONALLY* finds distasteful - DRM and the like - is a big
> turn-off for a *LOT* of people.

This is a pretty sad accusation.  2/3s of the Free Software packages
use the GPL with its existing spirit, and you still haven't shown that
any changes proposed in GPLv3 fail to abide by the same spirit.  That
some (many?) people misunderstood or disregarded the spirit is an
unfortunate fact, but trying to pose the patching that's going into
GPLv3 as if it was a matter of personal taste, rather than improved
compliance with the spirit, is unfair and uncalled for.

> (Personally I don't like *ANY* version of the GPL, because there are
> chunks I have problems with)

What are you doing lurking and spreading confusion in a list about a
project that chose to use it, then?

>> Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that
>> stopped people from modifying Linux in them?

> But you aren't talking about a "computer" here. You're talking about
> a mass-market device that must comply with both US and International
> copyright law - and that's just a TiVO.

Oh, sorry.  I missed when the meaning of the word computer was
narrowed from "machine with a general-purpose microprocessor, memory
and other peripherals" to whatever you decide it is.

And then, the GPL doesn't talk about computers at all.  It's not about
the hardware, it's about the software, remember? ;-)

> if you upload a modified linux kernel to your wireless router that
> gives it a 2000 foot range, you've just broken the law

At which point, you get punished by the law system.

> *AND* violated the license on the hardware which states that you
> "won't modify it or the controlling software"

Err..  The hardware licensor who includes software under the GPL be
supposed to be a licensee of the software in order to have legal
permission to distribute it, at which point the following provision
kicks in:

  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
  Program) [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the
  recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. [...]

And here's one of the rights granted herein that would be restricted
by this hardware license:

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
  of it, thus forming a work based on the Program,

So such a restriction in the hardware license seems to be failure to
comply with the GPL, which means the violator may lose the license.

> even things like the connectors used to upload the operating
> software at the factory that people now cannot have in a device that
> runs GPL(v3) covered software unless they ship the related
> "Installation Information".

This sounds like a reasonable point.  Please bring it up at
gplv3.fsf.org.  If it requires specialized hardware to modify the
software in the device, the hardware manufacturer can't modify the
software without cooperation from the user, and then perhaps it would
be fair for the user to need cooperation from the manufacturer.

> That, to me, reads like RMS got mad about TiVO and said "I don't
> like it, lets add a clause making it wrong to the next GPL". Hell,
> that *IS* what happened, and nothing the FSF or Eben Moglen says
> will convince me otherwise.

If you've already made your mind about this, in spite of not having
the facts, I guess it doesn't make sense for me to waste my time
trying to convince you, does it?

>> What's under the license is the software in it.  And that license
>> spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the
>> software.

> And since when did they have to enable people to use their hardware in 
> violation of the licensing agreement they implicitly agree to when opening 
> the package?

Since they got permission to distribute the software under the
condition of passing on the freedoms without imposing further
restrictions on their exercise.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out02b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:50:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 154
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:43:14 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706132243.14651.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's
> > > > > > > >> > offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the
> > > > > > > >> > FSF even acknowledged that. The fact
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future
> > > > > > > >> legal interpretation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the
> > > > > > > US would prevail (or so I'm told).  That's not saying what TiVo
> > > > > > > did was right, and that's not saying that what TiVo did was
> > > > > > > permitted by the license. Only courts of law can do that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What
> > > > > > TiVO did is entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2.
> > > > > > Note that what they *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever
> > > > > > version of whatever software they want on their hardware. They
> > > > > > have that right - its the "Free Software Foundation" and the GPL
> > > > > > - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. ...
> > > > >
> > > > > The GPLv2 says:
> > > > >
> > > > > "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source
> > > > > code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
> > > > > definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
> > > > > installation of the executable."
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is whether this includes private keys.
> > > > > Different people have different opinions regarding this issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > If "the complete source code" includes private keys, the GPLv2
> > > > > requires them to give any costumer the private keys.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact is that Harald Welte did in several cases successfully
> > > > > convince vendors that private keys are part of the source code if
> > > > > they are required for running the compiled binary on some hardware.
> > > >
> > > > If the hardware was designed for the end-user to change the software
> > > > running on it - including running software that it was never meant to
> > > > run (ie: a complete webserver on cell phone) - then yes, the signing
> > > > keys are a part of the source, as the software running on the device
> > > > is designed to be updated by the user using the provided system.
> > > >
> > > > If, on the other hand, the only "software updates" the user is
> > > > expected to perform are the installation of newer versions of the
> > > > existing code for "Security" or "Bug Fix" reasons then the signing
> > > > keys aren't part of the source.
> > >
> > > Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that
> > > doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs?
> >
> > Nope. Merely stating a distinction. Either a device is distributed, like
> > the common PC, that is designed for the user to change and update the
> > software on, or, like the PS2 it isn't designed for that. If I find a way
> > to update my PS2 to run Linux and find that it doesn't want to start the
> > "Linux Firmware" because I'm lacking a signing key...
> >
> > In the case of a device that internally runs Linux (or any other GPL'd
> > software) and wasn't designed for the end-user to change the software
> > running on it then the signing keys aren't part of the source. OTOH, if I
> > sell a PC running Linux that requires the kernel be signed then the
> > signing keys *are* part of the source, since a PC is designed for the
> > end-user to change the software running on it.
> >
> > BTW, nice use of irony with that line. Makes me regret letting my fingers
> > get ahead of my brain.
> >
> > > The GPL doesn't give someone distributing the software the choice of
> > > how much to limit the freedom of the user.
> >
> > Never claimed it did. I just wasn't as specific as I should have been
> > when giving my examples.
> >
> > > Either private keys required to run the kernel on the hardware are
> > > always considered part of "the complete source code" or they are never
> > > part of it.
> >
> > No. It all depends on the use-case. If the hardware is designed for the
> > user to install their own, custom versions of the code on then the
> > signing keys are part of the source as defined by the GPLv2.
> >
> > If, OTOH, the hardware was never meant for the end-user to install custom
> > versions of the software on, then while the signing keys are still
> > *technically* part of the source, in practice they are not. Why? Because
> > in most of those cases the end-user isn't granted the right to install
> > and run custom binaries on the hardware. If the manufacturer provided the
> > signing keys they'd be facilitating the commission of a crime. (call it
> > "Breach of Contract")
> >...
>
> Repetition doesn't let wrong things become true.
>
> Where does the GPLv2 talk about the distinction you are trying to make
> based on distributor intentions?
>
> We are talking about the GPLv2 licence text, not about what you would
> personally prefer.

The GPLv2 doesn't have to cover this distinction to make it a reality. This 
distinction is *EXACTLY* the type of distinction a lawyer will make when 
arguing the point.

Yes, it's artificial. Yes, it does appear to violate the GPLv2 - *IF* you read 
the text of such in a specific manner. 

However, the GPL, until version 3, *NEVER* guaranteed the right to run a given 
piece of software on *ANY* hardware - not the hardware it *COMES* on. 

And please, I repeated myself only because your reply seemed to imply that you 
didn't understand the statement I had made. Since you have now informed me, 
in a backhanded way, informed me that my interpretation of your response was 
wrong, I will not repeat myself again.

Also note that I have re-examined the facts, in light of new information 
presented in this discussion, and have come to the conclusion that devices 
like the TiVO, in keeping the signing keys private (because of 
the "Facilitation of a Crime" thing I noted earlier), is violating the GPL, 
but not in the manner almost everyone is arguing. The violation is, rather, 
with the clause about the license being null and void in event of laws 
impacting the delivery of the source. (Because, as I also stated earlier, the 
signing keys are part of the source. Since, in some cases, the license on the 
hardware prevents running modified binaries (a reason for the digital 
signing) companies will keep said keys private - doing otherwise can (and I 
can assure you that some lawyer will do this) be construed as "Facilitating 
the Commission of a crime". In this case, it'd be "Breach of Contract" - 
IANAL, but IIRC, licenses fall under contract law))

DRH

>
> cu
> Adrian



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:00:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 55
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614025640.GQ3588@stusta.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> 
<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:43:14PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > > > Either private keys required to run the kernel on the hardware are
> > > > always considered part of "the complete source code" or they are never
> > > > part of it.
> > >
> > > No. It all depends on the use-case. If the hardware is designed for the
> > > user to install their own, custom versions of the code on then the
> > > signing keys are part of the source as defined by the GPLv2.
> > >
> > > If, OTOH, the hardware was never meant for the end-user to install custom
> > > versions of the software on, then while the signing keys are still
> > > *technically* part of the source, in practice they are not. Why? Because
> > > in most of those cases the end-user isn't granted the right to install
> > > and run custom binaries on the hardware. If the manufacturer provided the
> > > signing keys they'd be facilitating the commission of a crime. (call it
> > > "Breach of Contract")
> > >...
> >
> > Repetition doesn't let wrong things become true.
> >
> > Where does the GPLv2 talk about the distinction you are trying to make
> > based on distributor intentions?
> >
> > We are talking about the GPLv2 licence text, not about what you would
> > personally prefer.
> 
> The GPLv2 doesn't have to cover this distinction to make it a reality. This 
> distinction is *EXACTLY* the type of distinction a lawyer will make when 
> arguing the point.
>...

Reality check:

Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys 
required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:00:12 +0200
Message-ID: <8vNJa-6qp-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8usx1-1Qa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8usx2-1Qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8utjz-2QT-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8uy9r-2du-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8viYF-19r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vjBm-1WR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vt7L-85Z-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vGHB-4dU-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vHu4-5uj-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vIq4-6Vz-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJFt-lm-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 123
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131930120.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <466BCBBC.90...@netone.net.tr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100301520.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
 <f24d23310706100355j3af7e12fq2e0e345402e48...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070610160531.GA12...@kroah.com> <f24d23310706121107y2ef218a4wc1c8f9a52fc9b...@mail.gmail.com>
 <20070612184110.GB7...@kroah.com> <orir9smp3u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131223051.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or7iq7mx7f....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20070613211432.GH10...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
 <orodjjlbu1....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or8xanl8jg....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.  

Stop right there.

You seem to make the mistake to think that software is something physical.

> TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.

No. If you were logical (which you are not), you would admit that 
 (a) physical property is very different from intellectual property (the 
     FSF seems to admit that when it suits their needs, not otherwise)
 (b) They never modified "a copy" of Linux - they simply replaced it with
     "another copy" of Linux. The only thing that actually got *modified* 
     was their hardware!

The first copy didn't "morph" into a second copy. There was no "physical" 
software that was molded.  They do need to follow the GPLv2, since clearly 
they _do_ distribute Linux, but you have all the same rights as they do 
with regard to the *software*. 

The fact that they maintained some control of the *hardware* (and some 
software they wrote too) they designed is _their_ choice.

What Tivo did and do, is to distribute hardware that can *contain* a copy 
of Linux (or just about anything else, for that matter - again, there's 
a difference between physical and intellectual property).

And their hardware (and firmware) will run some integrity checks on 
*whatever* copies of software they have.  This is all totally outside 
Linux itself.

Btw, according to your _insane_ notion of "a copy" of software, you can 
never distribute GPL'd software on a CD-ROM, since you've taken away the 
right of people to modify that CD-ROM by burning and fixating it. So 
according to your (obvously incorrect) reading of the GPLv2, every time 
Red Hat sends anybody a CD-ROM, they have restricted peoples right to 
modify the software on that CD-ROM bymaking it write-only.

See? Your reading of the license doesn't _work_. Mine does. What I say is 
that when you distribute software, you don't distribute "a copy" of 
software, you distribute the _information_ about the software, so that 
others can take it and modify it. And notice? My reading of the license 
must be the correct one, since my reading actually makes sense, unlike 
yours.

And yes, when Tivo distributes Linux, they give everybody else all the 
same rights they have - with respect to Linux! No, not with respect to 
their hardware, but that's a totally different thing, and if you cannot 
wrap your mind around the difference between "the software that is on a 
CD" and the "piece of plastic that is the CD", and see that when you 
replace "CD" with any other medium, the equation doesn't change, I don't 
know what to say.

> It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me.

Only if you extend the license to the *hardware*. Oops. Which it never did 
before. 

In other words, you basically try to change the rules. The GPLv2 clearly 
states that it's about software, not hardware. All the language you quoted 
talks about software.

In other words, the only way to argue that I'm wrong is to try to twist 
the meanings of the words, and say that words only mean one specific thing 
that _you_ claim are their meaning.

And I'm saying you act like Humpty Dumpty when you do. You can argue that 
way all you like, but your argument is nonsensical. It's akin to the 
argument that "God is perfect. Perfect implies existence. Therefore God 
exists".

That kind of argument only works if you *define* the words to suit your 
argument. But it's a logical fallacy.

And I'm saying that the GPLv2 can mroe straightforwardly be read the way I 
read it - to talk about software, and to realize that software is not "a 
copy", it's a more abstract thing. You get Linux when you buy a Tivo (or 
preferably - don't buy it, since you don't like it), and that means that 
they have to give you access to and control over the SOFTWARE. But nowhere 
in the GPL (in the preamble or anywhere else) does it talk about giving 
you control over the HARDWARE, and the only way you can twist the GPLv2 to 
say that is by trying to re-define what the words mean.

And then you call *me* confused? After you yourself admitted that the FSF 
actually agrees with me, and that what Tivo did was not a license 
violation?

Trust me, I'm not the confused person here.

I'm perfectly fine with other people wanting to extend the license to 
cover the hardware, but I am *not* perfectly fine with people then trying 
to claim I'm confused just because I don't agree with them.

Face it: the GPLv3 is a _new_ license. Making funamentally _different_ and 
_new_ restrictions that do not exist in the GPLv2, and do not exist in the 
preamble. Any language attempts to make it appear otherwise are just 
sophistry.

And btw, just to make it clear: as far as I'm concerned, you can read the 
preamble and the word "freedom" and "rigths" _your_ way. I'm not objecting 
to that at all. If you read it so that you think it's wrong to distribute 
GPL'd software on a CD-ROM, that's really not my problem. You do whatever 
you want to, and think the license means whatever you want to.

What I'm objecting to is how you claim that anybody that doesn't follow 
your interpretation is "confused". When clearly even the FSF lawyers agree 
that my interpretation was _correct_, and I don't think your 
interpretation even makes sense!

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.tiscali.de!
newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!area.cu.mi.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:10:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 53
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:04:21 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706132304.21984.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:04:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
> > Still doesn't explain why you have argued that the GPLv3 doesn't
> > attempt to cover hardware and then provide proof that it does.
>
> It doesn't cover hardware, in the same way that it doesn't cover
> patents, and it doesn't cover pro-DRM laws.  It merely arranges, as
> best as we've managed a copyright license to do, that they can't be
> used as excuses (or tools) to disrespect the freedoms that the GPL
> demands all licensees to respect for other users.

Consider this scenario:
Small company A is manufacturing a new WiFi router.
They decide to have it run HURD as the OS.
In complying with the GPLv3 they supply the signing keys and everything else 
needed to install a new kernel on the hardware.
User B buys the router and modifies the kernel so it drives the WiFi to an 
output power twice that which it is licensed to carry.
FCC finds out and prosecutes User B for violating the regulations.
FCC then pulls the small companies license until they change their hardware so 
the driver can't push it to transmit at a higher power level and levies a 
fine.
Small company A loses the money paid on the fine, has to recall all the 
devices that can be modified (through software) to break the law at a massive 
cost *AND* has to redesign their hardware. The total cost drives the company 
into bankruptcy.

Small companies C,D and E, in order to avoid the fate of small company A, 
purchases a license for proprietary OS "F" to drive their new hardware.

Net loss: A lot of the users and publicity that "Free Software" used to get, 
because GPLv3 contains language that opens the companies to lawsuits that 
they wouldn't otherwise face.

Which is better: Growing the base of installed GPL covered software, 
or "ethics and morals" that demand the language that has been added to the 
GPLv3 ? Personally I'd like to see proprietary software driven into a very 
small "niche" market or entirely out of existence. However much I want this 
to happen, I cannot be anything *BUT* scared of the GPLv3 simply because I 
see it creating massive problems - and all because of a *small* portion of 
the new language it contains. It has taken almost 15 years for "Free 
Software" to make a dent in the market, and, IMHO, a lot of that is both 
Linux and the "holes" in GPLv2.

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!
robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:20:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8vO2q-74g-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKij-1rS-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vLHi-3pq-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 75
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131957440.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orejkfla3l....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
 <200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614004419.GL3...@stusta.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code 
> for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition 
> files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of 
> the executable."
> 
> The question is whether this includes private keys.

No. That's the question as the FSF would like to frame it.

But the real fact is that it *not* the right question.

You can install Linux on a Tivo all you like. Take out the harddisk, 
install your own version of Linux on it, and put it back in. That's pretty 
much how Tivo installs Linux on the things too, afaik, although they don't 
need to take the disk out (since they just assemble it).

No magic needed. In fact, no keys needed.

Now, maybe the hardware/firmware knows to expect a certain SHA1 on that 
disk, that's a different issue. Tivo could even tell you exactly what the 
SHA1 they are checking is. Maybe they have a list of SHA1's, and maybe 
they have a way to upgrade THEIR OWN FIRMWARE with new SHA1's, and they 
could still tell you all of them, and be very open.

And you could actually replace their copy of Linux with another one. It 
would have to have the same SHA1 to actually start _running_, but that's 
the hardware's choice. 

See? No private keys needed. No magic install scripts. It really _is_ that 
easy.

Of course, using private keys, and signing the image with them is possibly 
a technically more flexible/easier/more obvious way to do it, but in the 
end, do you really want to argue technical details?

But I think the whole thing is totally misguided, because the fact is, the 
GPLv2 doesn't talk about "in place" or "on the same hardware". 

So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted 
by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But 
do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on 
master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT!

So by the idiotic logic of "modifying in place", I'm violating the GPLv2 
every time I'm makign a release - because I make Linux available, but I 
don't actually give people the "same rights" to that particular copy that 
I have! Oh horrors of horrors! You need to make a _copy_ of the thing I 
distribute, and then you have the same rights I have to that _copy_, but 
you never had the same rights to the thing I actually distributed!

And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating 
the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a 
f*cking moron! You have the right to modify *copies* of the kernel I 
distribute, but you cannot actually modify the _actual_ entity that I made 
available!

See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo 
distribution? The rights that the GPLv2 gives to "the software", is to 
something much bigger than "the particular copy of the software". 

Can people really not see the difference between "the software" and "a 
particular encoded copy of the software"? 

I'm sorry, but people who cannot see that difference are just stupid.

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!aioe.org!
news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:10:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1181793617_3457P";
	 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 47
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:00:17 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <9578.1181793617@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> 
<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
            <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:

> Reality check:
> 
> Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys 
> required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware.

No, the *real* reality check:

The operative words here are "convinced companies" - as opposed to "convinced
a judge to rule that private keys are required to be disclosed". (I just
checked around on gpl-violations.org, and I don't see any news items that say
they actually generated citable case law on the topic of keys...)

Harald convinced companies that it was easier/cheaper/faster to provide the
private keys than to continue in a long legal battle with an uncertain outcome.
If the company estimates the total loss due to keys being released is US$100K,
but the costs of taking it to court are estimated at US$200K, it's obviously
a win (lesser loss, actually) for the company to just fold.

Incidentally, this same logic is what drives the average successful patent
troll lawsuit - the sued company will buy a license for $25K, just because
they know that fighting the lawsuit will cost $100K and up.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:40:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8vRa2-3qy-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKij-1rS-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vLHi-3pq-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vO2q-74g-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 74
X-Original-Cc: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:36:12 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <ortztbgi03.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orejkfla3l....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614004419.GL3...@stusta.de>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131957440.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> 
>> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code 
>> for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition 
>> files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of 
>> the executable."
>> 
>> The question is whether this includes private keys.

> No. That's the question as the FSF would like to frame it.

No.  The FSF actually does *not* want to take this position.  That's
why it chose the formulation of Installation Instructions.  It doesn't
share my view that the keys needed to sign a binary in order for it to
work are part of the source code.

> And you could actually replace their copy of Linux with another one. It 
> would have to have the same SHA1 to actually start _running_, but that's 
> the hardware's choice. 

That's the hardware imposing a restriction on modification of the
software.  It doesn't matter how elaborate the excuse is to justify
denying users' freedoms: it's against the spirit of the GPL, and the
GPL will be amended as needed to plug such holes.

> So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted 
> by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But 
> do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on 
> master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT!

That's an interesting argument.

People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about
it.

When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have
a right to modify that copy.

> And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating 
> the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a 
> f*cking moron!

Agreed, except I'd probably use a lighter term.

> See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo 
> distribution?

Yes.  You see how TiVO is different?  It is modifyable, and I actually
receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't.

> The rights that the GPLv2 gives to "the software", is to something
> much bigger than "the particular copy of the software".

Indeed, it's something bigger.  But this doesn't exclude the smaller
things, does it?

> Can people really not see the difference between "the software" and "a 
> particular encoded copy of the software"? 

There is a difference.  But the GPL doesn't limit itself to the
former.  It explicitly talks about "copies".

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bernd Petrovitsch <be...@firmix.at>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:40:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8vT29-6p5-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vLHh-3pq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNpK-635-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Firmix Software GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Firmix-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on ns.firmix.at
X-Firmix-Spam-Score: -1.131 () AWL
X-Firmix-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.131 required=5
X-Spam-Score: -1.131 () AWL
X-Firmix-Envelope-From: <be...@firmix.at>
X-Firmix-Envelope-To: <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 48
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:37:55 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <1181810275.14938.16.camel@tara.firmix.at>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	 <or8xanl8jg....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	 <200706132042.02728.dhazel...@enter.net>
	 <ord4zzjm5u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on 
> > their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* 
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTW as soon as I bought that thing, it is *my* hardware and no longer
*theirs* (whoever "theirs" was).

> > covered by the GPL.
> 
> Indeed, TiVO has this legal right.  But then they must not use

Do they? At least in .at, it is usually impossible to (legally) limit
the rights of the *owner* a (tangible) thing (and if I bought it, I *am*
the owner and no one else) - even if you put it in the sales contract
since this is discussion about/within sales law.

One usual example is "you buy a car and neither the car producer nor the
(re)seller can restrict the brands of the tires you may use or the brand
of the fuel etc.".

And the same holds for pretty much everything. No one can forbid you to
open a TV set and fix it (or let it fix by whoever I choose to).

Yes, there are exceptions in several laws for specific things (e.g. for
really dangerous ones like airbags in cars) but in general, you are
allowed to do almost anything (including the simple destruction of it).

And yes, if you *rent* the thing, you are not the owner and this is a
totally different thing.

> software under the GPLv3 in it.  And, arguably, they must not use
> software under the GPLv2 either.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out03b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!
newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:20:14 +0200
Message-ID: <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 21
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:23:29 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614112329.3645c397@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

> the new language it contains. It has taken almost 15 years for "Free 
> Software" to make a dent in the market, and, IMHO, a lot of that is both 
> Linux and the "holes" in GPLv2.


You appear terminally confused. The purpose of the GPL as defined by its
authors is not commercial success, world domination or making zillions of
dollars - it is keeping the software protected by that license "free" in
terms of liberty as measured against the set of freedoms to
run/modify/etc they discuss in the licence document.

The fact this is a good license for making zillions of dollars, producing
good software and the like is either incidental or a logical result of the
protection of freedoms depending upon which views you believe.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:50:05 +0200
Message-ID: <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 41
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:38:46 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614103846.GA7902@elte.hu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org


* Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > the new language it contains. It has taken almost 15 years for "Free 
> > Software" to make a dent in the market, and, IMHO, a lot of that is both 
> > Linux and the "holes" in GPLv2.
> 
> You appear terminally confused. The purpose of the GPL as defined by 
> its authors is not commercial success, world domination or making 
> zillions of dollars - it is keeping the software protected by that 
> license "free" in terms of liberty as measured against the set of 
> freedoms to run/modify/etc they discuss in the licence document.
> 
> The fact this is a good license for making zillions of dollars, 
> producing good software and the like is either incidental or a logical 
> result of the protection of freedoms depending upon which views you 
> believe.

that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral 
boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF seems to 
believe "nowhere, anything that copyright law allows us to achieve our 
goals is a fair game" - and the GPLv3 shows that belief. I dont 
subscribe to that view. I think the proper limit is the boundary where 
the limit of the software is - because that's the only sane and globally 
workable way to stop the power-hungry. I.e. the information we produce 
is covered by the rules of the GPL. It might be used in ways 
inconvenient to us, it might be put on hardware we dont like (be that a 
Tivo, a landmine or an abortion instrument) but that does not change the 
fundamental fact: it's outside the _moral scope_ of our power. Whether 
some jurisdictions allow the control of _other_ information via our 
information is immaterial. If a jurisdiction allows the control of 
hardware that is associated with our software, so what? If a 
jurisdiction allows the controlling of various aspects of movie theaters 
that happen to play copyrighted movies, does it make it morally right?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:30:18 +0200
Message-ID: <8vVGO-2cf-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
X-Authenticated: #153925
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19WMxwOiaxWO3B4NNv7L4np7Db/vHVql1t6ptw64Q
	zyARaIGVNnQXq1
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart1487594.etLaccyozl";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 71
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:27:59 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706141328.00798.bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> <20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday 14 June 2007 12:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral
> boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF seems to
> believe "nowhere, anything that copyright law allows us to achieve our
> goals is a fair game" - and the GPLv3 shows that belief. I dont
> subscribe to that view. I think the proper limit is the boundary where
> the limit of the software is - because that's the only sane and globally
> workable way to stop the power-hungry. I.e. the information we produce
> is covered by the rules of the GPL. It might be used in ways
> inconvenient to us, it might be put on hardware we dont like (be that a
> Tivo, a landmine or an abortion instrument) but that does not change the
> fundamental fact: it's outside the _moral scope_ of our power.

Where is the boundary between hard- and software? I'm employed as hardware=
=20
designer, and for this purpose, I write programs in a hardware description=
=20
language, which can be converted into hardware through a synthesis=20
software. I write firmware, which is assembled into binary and gets placed=
=20
on on-chip memory (ROM or NVM). I've even studied computer science, and=20
electric engineering was just a side-course. I know how transistors work,=20
and how gates are implemented in terms of transistors, but in essense, it's=
=20
not that relevant unless you want to do analog circuits. Usually, during=20
the development phase, we put the Verilog into an FPGA, where the=20
configuration file still is obviously "software" in any sense it can be.=20
I've even released descriptions of some parts of the work I do under GPL=20
for people to put it into their own FPGAs.

There is no boundary between hard- and software in the sense of that=20
hardware is something fundamentally different. Hardware is just another way=
=20
to implement programs, and it uses other languages (but SystemC even looks=
=20
quite close to C). If there is a boundary, it's way below the distinction=20
between a Tivo and a PC, because these two basically consist of a=20
processor, some RAM, some flash, a harddisk, and a video driver.

What's true: We don't have the moral power to define *where* the software=20
goes, but we have the moral power to define *how* users can change the=20
software when they own the hardware (the physical representation).

=2D-=20
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!
feed.tweaknews.nl!213.132.189.1.MISMATCH!multikabel.net!
feed10.multikabel.net!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!
border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!
216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!news-out.tin.it!news.caltanet.it!erode.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:30:16 +0200
Message-ID: <8vXyU-55Y-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vVGO-2cf-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 76
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:24:57 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614132457.GB29423@elte.hu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> <200706141328.00798.bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org


* Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Thursday 14 June 2007 12:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral
> > boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF seems to
> > believe "nowhere, anything that copyright law allows us to achieve our
> > goals is a fair game" - and the GPLv3 shows that belief. I dont
> > subscribe to that view. I think the proper limit is the boundary where
> > the limit of the software is - because that's the only sane and globally
> > workable way to stop the power-hungry. I.e. the information we produce
> > is covered by the rules of the GPL. It might be used in ways
> > inconvenient to us, it might be put on hardware we dont like (be that a
> > Tivo, a landmine or an abortion instrument) but that does not change the
> > fundamental fact: it's outside the _moral scope_ of our power.
> 
> Where is the boundary between hard- and software? [...]

this is largely irrelevant to my argument: the FSF is clearly trying to 
extend the scope of the GPL to restrict the distribution of certain 
hardware+software combinations. The FSF is not really arguing that the 
boundary between software and hardware is diffuse. (which btw. it 
clearly is) The FSF simply wants to be able to say via the GPLv3: "to be 
able to distribute GPL-ed software, the hardware is required to do this 
and this".

please note an important thing here: "required to do this and this" is 
the _precise antithesis_ of "freedom". The only significant restriction 
on freedom the GPLv2 allows is that the covered work (the software) is 
not to be restricted. And that is a fair deal. Even if any additional 
restrictions would otherwise be for the "common good" and would further 
"freedom" in creative ways.

If the FSF's argument and approach was correct then it would be fine to 
add these restrictions to GPLv4:

 - do not distribute non-GPL-compatible software with GPL software on 
   the same hardware.

 - send at least 10 free samples of the hardware to the FSF 
   headquarters. (after all true freedom is only achieved if developers 
   are not only allowed to modify the hardware, but are allowed to test 
   it as well, for the freedom of the community.)

 - donate $10 to the FSF.

 - spray "Linus sucks because he stole RMS's GNU thunder in the 90s and
   never gave it back!" graffiti on 3 separate walls in your
   neighborhood.

Each of these items is an additional restriction on either the 
hardware+software combination that is being distributed or on the person 
who does the distribution, and each of these items - some abstractly, 
some more directly - advance a notion of the "four GNU freedoms" in some 
way. And each of these items has a basis in copyright law and might be 
legally put into a license and might be enforceable. (ok, probably not 
the last item ;)

think about it, the list of things that one can do via license to 
"achieve more freedom" just doesnt stop! My point is: it has to stop at 
the only boundary that makes sense, and which boundary is clearly 
spelled out in the spirit and in the letter of the GPLv2: "our work is 
our work, your work is your work".

Any additional restriction to "help achieve more freedom" just puts us 
into divisive political and moralistic games that will only fracture us, 
that will eventually erode the value of our software and hence makes any 
'power' we have over that software meaningless in the real world. In the 
end no-one but the Microsofts of this world will win.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!
erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: "Alan Milnes" <a...@itfoundation.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:10:13 +0200
Message-ID: <8vYbz-6bu-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vVGO-2cf-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vXyU-55Y-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 21
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:08:31 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <b200add30706140708p41e943dbm5d14ba52a6e0ae75@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	 <20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	 <20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	 <200706141328.00798.bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
	 <20070614132457.GB29...@elte.hu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On 14/06/07, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu> wrote:

>    My point is: it has to stop at the only boundary that makes sense, 
> and which boundary is clearly spelled out in the spirit and in the 
> letter of the GPLv2: "our work is our work, your work is your work".

Agreed - if you want to take my work you are welcome as long as you
contribute back your changes.  That's the deal that GPL2 enforces and
why it has been so successful. GPL3 is a very different beast with a
much wider agenda, which makes it far more difficult to achieve
consensus on what it should contain.

Personally I would have liked to seen a GPL2.x which fixes some of the
issues but stays true to the more limited objective.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:20:11 +0200
Message-ID: <8vZhh-7RF-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vLHh-3pq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNpK-635-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vT29-6p5-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bernd Petrovitsch <be...@firmix.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 88
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140750290.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
 <or8xanl8jg....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>  <200706132042.02728.dhazel...@enter.net>
  <ord4zzjm5u....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <1181810275.14938.16.ca...@tara.firmix.at>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > 
> > > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on 
> > > their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* 
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> BTW as soon as I bought that thing, it is *my* hardware and no longer
> *theirs* (whoever "theirs" was).

You bought *their* design. It was your choice. 

And yes, you own the hardware, and you can hack it any which way you like 
(modulo laws and any other contracts you signed when you bought it). But 
they had the right to design it certain ways, and part of that design may 
be making it _harder_ for you to hack.

For example, they may have used glue to put the thing together rather than 
standard phillips screws. Or poured resin over some of the chips. All of 
which has been done (not necessarily with Linux, but this really is an 
issue that has nothing to do with Linux per se). Making the firmware or 
hardware harder to access or modify is their choice.

Your choice is whether you buy it, despite the fact that you know it's not 
necessarily all that easy to hack.

> > Indeed, TiVO has this legal right.  But then they must not use
> 
> Do they? At least in .at, it is usually impossible to (legally) limit
> the rights of the *owner* a (tangible) thing (and if I bought it, I *am*
> the owner and no one else) - even if you put it in the sales contract
> since this is discussion about/within sales law.

The "when I buy it, I own it" argument is a favourite of the GPLv3 shills, 
but it's irrelevant. The *design* was done long before you bought it, and 
yes, Tivo had the right to design and build it, any which way they wanted 
to. 

> One usual example is "you buy a car and neither the car producer nor the
> (re)seller can restrict the brands of the tires you may use or the brand
> of the fuel etc.".
> 
> And the same holds for pretty much everything. No one can forbid you to
> open a TV set and fix it (or let it fix by whoever I choose to).

You are missing the picture. Sure, you can do whatever you want to (within 
any applicable laws) _after_ you bought it. But that doesn't take away the 
right from the manufacturer to design it his way.

And you're also *wrong*. Tivo doesn't limit the brands of electricity it 
uses or anything idiotic like that. You can put after-market rubber bumps 
on the thing to make it look sleeker, and I seriously doubt that Tivo will 
do aythign at all. It's about going into the innards, and different car 
manufacturers make that harder too, for various reasons.

If the car manufacturer makes things harder to hack, it's your choice. For 
example, car hackers *do* actually prefer certain brands. Apparently the 
Subaru's are popular, and German cars are a pain to try to change. I'm 
told that even somethign as simple as upgrading the sound system is just 
_harder_ in a German car, apparently because they make things fit together 
so tightly, that doing after-market cabling is just much more of a 
problem.

Same goes for things like electronic engine controls. Look it up. Try 
chipping a car lately? For some, it's literally buying a chip online, and 
some fairly simple work. For others, it's almost impossible, and you have 
to take your car in to somebody who really knows what he's doing. And you 
know what? Exactly like with a Tivo, the car manufacturer won't have 
anything to do with the car afterwards. If you broke it by chipping it, 
you voided your warranty.

See? If you are actually looking for a car to hack on, you'd buy a car 
with that in mind. Do the exact same thing with your Tivo. Don't buy it if 
you want to hack it: buy a Neuros OSD device instead!  I'm serious: the 
Neuros people do *not* limit you, and in fact they encourage hacking. 
Instead of whining about Tivo, do something *positive*, and support Neuros 
for their better policies!

				Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:30:17 +0200
Message-ID: <8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 48
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:20:34 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614152034.GS3588@stusta.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> 
<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net> <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de> 
<9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0400, Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> 
> > Reality check:
> > 
> > Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys 
> > required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware.
> 
> No, the *real* reality check:
> 
> The operative words here are "convinced companies" - as opposed to "convinced
> a judge to rule that private keys are required to be disclosed". (I just
> checked around on gpl-violations.org, and I don't see any news items that say
> they actually generated citable case law on the topic of keys...)
> 
> Harald convinced companies that it was easier/cheaper/faster to provide the
> private keys than to continue in a long legal battle with an uncertain outcome.
> If the company estimates the total loss due to keys being released is US$100K,
> but the costs of taking it to court are estimated at US$200K, it's obviously
> a win (lesser loss, actually) for the company to just fold.
>...

Here in Germany, the rules at court are roughly "the loser pays 
everything including the costs of the winner", so if a big company is 
sure they will win at court there's no reason not to go there.

And if they did the effort of using private keys to only allow running 
an official firmware, they must have seen an advantage from doing so.

I'm not saying it legally clear the other way round, my statement was 
an answer to Daniel's emails claiming it was clear what such companies 
do was legal.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:40:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vZAz-8gZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vJcr-8a8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKij-1rS-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLe-21i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vLHi-3pq-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vO2q-74g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vRa2-3qy-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 94
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140817520.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131456230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orejkfla3l....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <200706131946.15714.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614004419.GL3...@stusta.de> 
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131957440.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <ortztbgi03....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about
> it.
> 
> When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have
> a right to modify that copy.

Umm. I notice how you must have known how *idiotic* your response was, 
because you snipped away the part where I talked about Red Haty 
distributing CD-ROM's.

In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), 
and you cannot modify that copy that you got.

So the "right to make changes" _must_ be separate from the actual copy of 
the image.

And don't get fooled by the "all the rights that you have". That 
_obviously_ and clearly talks about "the program", which in turn 
equally obviously and clearly has to be about something bigger than the 
"one copy", since the GPLv2 requires you have the right to change it.

So you edited out the part where I talked about CD's. That's the proof 
that your reading is untenable, because obviously you cannot change the 
program on the CD: you got a copy, but the right to make modifications 
wasn't ON THAT HARDWARE.

> > And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating 
> > the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a 
> > f*cking moron!
> 
> Agreed, except I'd probably use a lighter term.

Hey, I'm not exactly known for being polite. I tell it how I see it, and I 
tend to be pretty damn blunt about  it. 

> > See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo 
> > distribution?
> 
> Yes.  You see how TiVO is different?  It is modifyable, and I actually
> receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't.

You keep on harping on that "modifyable", but no-where in the GPLv2 is 
that an issue. I claim that it *cannot* be an issue, since CD's are 
obviously ok.

So the "modifyable" part is a totally new thing to the GPLv3.

You cannot use that as an argument that the GPLv3 didn't change things, 
that's a circular agument: "the GPLv3 says so, so thus the GPLv3 is in the 
same spirit as the GPLv2". Doesn't make sense.

The fact is, the GPLv3 does fundamentally new things. Things I didn't sign 
up for (and things that nobody _else_ signed up for either) when I chose 
the GPLv2 for the kernel.

The fact that some people would like to change the kernel license to GPLv3 
is no different from the fact that some other people would like to cgange 
the kernel license to the BSD license.

Those people who have argued for using the BSD license, btw, argued so in 
the name of "freedom". No different from you. Do you think they were 
right? If so, why the hell do you think _you_ are right?

So here's what it fundamentally boils down to:

 - do you admit that the GPLv3 is a new license that does new and 
   different things?

 - do you admit that I chose the GPLv2, and have argued that I chose it 
   because I understood what it said?

 - do you admit that authors have the right to choose their own licenses?

And here's the fundamental answer:

 - if you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you're either 
   stupid (the first two questions) or a douche-bag (the third one)

 - if you answered "yes" to all the above questions, HOW THE HELL can you 
   call me confused, and argue against me when I say that the GPLv2 is a 
   better license? It wasn't your choice. 

It really is that easy. 

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8vZKg-8th-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vXyU-55Y-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vYbz-6bu-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: "Alan Milnes" <a...@itfoundation.org.uk>
X-Authenticated: #153925
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Bv/Z6fEEBN9Nfw92kr8a2JjG4Gx0jfXDF33BTrL
	9/rTql9jCfZRWF
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart7370951.SmvirUt1cq";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 58
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:44:07 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706141744.08408.bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<20070614132457.GB29...@elte.hu> 
<b200add30706140708p41e943dbm5d14ba52a6e0a...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:08, Alan Milnes wrote:
> Agreed - if you want to take my work you are welcome as long as you
> contribute back your changes.  That's the deal that GPL2 enforces and
> why it has been so successful.

That may be a side effect of the GPL, but it's actually not how the GPLv2=20
works (nor is it the intention). "Contribute back" means upstream. There's=
=20
no such provision in the GPLv2, you contribute only downstream. And there=20
are cases where you don't need to contribute at all.

E.g. the kernel hacking I'm doing at the moment: I have bought a uClinux=20
blackfin board, for testing my digital audio amplifier. For that, I took=20
one of the blackfin alsa audio drivers, and changed it so that it could=20
talk to my digital audio amplifier. I'm not distributing this software,=20
it's a complete in-house project, so I'm not obliged to contribute back. At=
=20
the moment, I'm the only person in the world who has both access to the=20
digital audio amplifier and the blackfin board, so releasing this driver in=
=20
that early stage is a rather pointless excercise.

I think this above explains fairly well the "misunderstandings" that are=20
appearing here. The GPL is not reflective (tit-for-tat), it's transient. If=
=20
there's a loop in the transient propagation, it becomes reflective through=
=20
the loop, but not by itself. This was the case in GPLv1, is the case in=20
GPLv2, and will be the case in GPLv3.

=2D-=20
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.tiscali.de!
newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:10:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 66
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> <200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de> <9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> Here in Germany, the rules at court are roughly "the loser pays 
> everything including the costs of the winner", so if a big company is 
> sure they will win at court there's no reason not to go there.

Well, the thing is (and I've said this before), a lawsuit is (and _should_ 
be) very much a last resort.

I think that the Open Source community (and the FSF too) is much better 
off *not* concentrating so much on "legal rules" of what can and cannot be 
done, and instead spend much more effort on showing people why the whole 
"Open Source" thing actually works.

And in fact, I think that's _exactly_ what Linux has been doing for the 
last decade!

A lot of companies are actually doing the Right Thing (tm).

Not because of anybody "forcing" them, but because they have literally 
bought into the whole "Open Source can do things better" mentality. 

In fact, the whole "coercive" approach is counter-productive. It makes 
people dislike you. It makes companies _resist_ open source, rather than 
see it as a potential ally. 

And no, I'm not speaking out of my *ss. Anybody who goes back fifteen 
years and looks at how the FSF was acting wrt the GPL (v2, back then), and 
how many friends - and enemies - they were making, should see that as a 
big clue. Linux really *did* change the landscape - for the better (*). By 
being much less contrary.

So look at Intel in the open source space. They're doing well. Look at 
Sun. They aren't _forced_ to open-source, they see others open-sourcing, 
and they see that it works damn well.

In the "Tivo space", look at Neuros. 

In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and 
not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism 
that was - and still is - the FSF. The FSF always makes for this horrible 
"you're with us, or you're against us" black-and-white mentality, where 
there are "evil" companies (Tivo) and "good" companies (although I dunno 
if the FSF really sees anybody as truly "good").

I'd much rather just see "individuals" and "companies". They're not evil 
or good, they are all in it for their own reasons (and their reasons are 
*NOT* the same reasons they are for me, you, or anybody else), and we 
should show them that the whole "Open Source" approach really does work 
for them.

It's totally pointless to try to "force" people to be good. That's like 
"curing" gay people. Not going to happen. 

			Linus

(*) Not just Linux, of course, but I do claim that this is actually an 
area where Linux was a big influence. Not the only one, but a major 
player.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!
feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed-0.progon.net!
progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:40:13 +0200
Message-ID: <8w0wJ-1hB-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vLHh-3pq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w0wJ-1hB-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Kevin Fox <Kevin....@pnl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 45
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140923250.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm> 
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
 <or8xanl8jg....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>  <200706132042.02728.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <1181837191.21942.24.ca...@zathras.emsl.pnl.gov>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kevin Fox wrote:
> 
> The hardware isn't directly covered by the GPL, correct. But, if they
> want to use the software on the hardware, they have to comply with the
> GPL.

Only with the GPLv3.

Again, don't confuse the *new* requirements in the GPLv3 with any "GPL 
requirements". They didn't exist before. The kernel never signed up to 
them. They are irrelevant for the discussion.

So hardware details have *nothing* to do with compying with the GPLv2.

Could you write *another* license that puts limitations on the hardware or 
environment that you have to comply with? Sure can. And the GPLv3 does 
that. But the GPLv2 does not, and that's a fundmanetal *improvement* over 
the GPLv3 in my opinion.

Do you like licenses that force the licensee to give money back?

So why do you like licenses that force the licensee to give access to 
hardware back? It's a form of "extra compensation" that the GPLv2 never 
had. The GPLv2 talks about giving access to the *source* code. The GPLv3 
talks about giving access to the *hardware*. 

Can people really not see the difference, and why I might think it's a 
fundamental difference, and why I might choose to say that the GPLv3 is a 
worse license?

And *why* would I ever downgrade to a worse license? There had better be 
some really pressing reason to choose the worse version of the GPL. And I 
just don't find that reason in the GPLv3 itself - although, as mentioned, 
the reason could become *external* (ie I might accept a worse license it 
it comes with external code attached to it that I think makes up for the 
license deficiency).

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
newsfeeder.wxs.nl!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
nntp.infostrada.it!area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:23 +0200
Message-ID: <8w0Qf-1HR-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vO2q-74g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vRa2-3qy-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vRD3-4ji-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 47
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:52:59 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orr6oefpg4.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131957440.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<ortztbgi03....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706140305.50095.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:

> And? There is *absolutely* *nothing* in any version of the GPL *prior* to 3 
> that says that hardware cannot impose restrictions.

It's not that the hardware is deciding to impose restrictions on its
own.  It's the hardware distributor that is deciding to use the
hardware to impose restrictions on the user.  Seems like a violation
of section 6 of GPLv2 to me.

> What the GPL *does* say is that you can't "add additional
> restrictions to the license"

Not quite.  It's more general than that:

  You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
  exercise of the rights granted herein.

>> > So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted
>> > by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But
>> > do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on
>> > master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT!

>> That's an interesting argument.

>> People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about
>> it.

>> When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have
>> a right to modify that copy.

> But you get the TiVO corporations copy of the software?

Yes.  The customer gets the copy that TiVO stored in the hard disk in
the device it sells.  And it's that copy that the customer is entitled
to modify because TiVO is still able to modify it.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:20:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8w19k-2nl-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vO2q-74g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vRa2-3qy-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vRD3-4ji-11@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w0Qf-1HR-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 84
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141003550.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131957440.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <ortztbgi03....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <200706140305.50095.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <orr6oefpg4....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> It's not that the hardware is deciding to impose restrictions on its
> own.  It's the hardware distributor that is deciding to use the
> hardware to impose restrictions on the user.  Seems like a violation
> of section 6 of GPLv2 to me.

You *still* haven't figured out the difference between "the software" and 
"a particular copy of the software", have you?

What's your problem?

I doubt you're really stupid, so I think your problem is that if you admit 
that "the software" is something *different* from "a particular copy of 
the software", you realize (perhaps subconsciously) that your arguments do 
not make any sense. So you do not allow yourself to think clearly about 
the matter.

So let's look at that "section 6" that you talk about, and quote the 
relevant parts, will  we:

	You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' 
	exercise of the rights granted herein.

and then let's look at Red Hat sending me a CD-ROM or a DVD.

Now, Red Hat clearly *did* "further restrict" my rights as it pertains TO 
THAT COPY ON THE CD-ROM! I cannot change it! Waa waa waa! I'll sue your 
sorry ass off!

See the issue? You are continually making the mistake of thinking that the 
GPLv2 talks about individual copies of software. And I'm continually 
having to point out that that is a MISTAKE.

And it's OBVIOUSLY a mistake, because your reading is nonsensical. If you 
think that Tivo does somethign bad, then hat Red Hat does is the same 
badness, thousads times over! I strongly suspect Red Hat has shipped a lot 
more CD-ROM's than Tivo has shipped boxes!

So let me iterate AGAIN:

 - the rights that the GPLv2 gives *cannot* be about "the particular copy" 
   that you send, since that would be INSANE. Red Hat sends lots of copies 
   of software that are NOT MODIFIABLE!

 - ergo, the rights about "the software" in the GPLv2 must be about 
   something else. 

See? Your argument about "individual copies" simply DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Just admit it.

> > What the GPL *does* say is that you can't "add additional
> > restrictions to the license"
> 
> Not quite.  It's more general than that:
> 
>   You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
>   exercise of the rights granted herein.

And your point is? Nothing.

The rights granted are the rights to "distribute and modify the software". 
But by "the software", the license is not talking about a particular 
*copy* of the software, it's talking about the software IN THE ABSTRACT.

In other words, the reason that Red Hat is not violating the GPLv2 is that 
no, I cannot change the copy on the software on the particular CD-ROM or 
DVD, but I can get a copy of the sources other ways, and make my own 
modifications *SOMEWHERE*ELSE*!

The fact that Red Hat made a "restricted copy" is totally irrelevant.

In fact, it's exactly as irrelevant as the fact that Tivo makes a 
"restricted copy". The *software* is still free!

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:20:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Originating-IP: [70.53.13.125]
X-Originating-Email: [seanl...@sympatico.ca]
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originalarrivaltime: 14 Jun 2007 17:14:40.0278 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E29AB60:01C7AEA7]
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 44
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>, Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:14:09 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de>
	<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de>
	<9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and 
> not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism 
> that was - and still is - the FSF. The FSF always makes for this horrible 
> "you're with us, or you're against us" black-and-white mentality, where 
> there are "evil" companies (Tivo) and "good" companies (although I dunno 
> if the FSF really sees anybody as truly "good").

Linus,

If you really believe that then why didn't you choose a BSD license
for Linux?  You didn't say "completely free, no restrictions attached,
people will follow because they'll see it's best, we just won't buy
products that use Linux in a way with which we disagree".

Instead you chose a license which enforced the so called tit-for-tat
policy you think is fair.  But people who prefer the BSD license may
think you're a moron for forcing your political agenda (ie. tit-for-tat)
on users of your code.  The point of all that being, you _do_ believe
in enforcing restrictions or you wouldn't like the GPL v2.

So you draw the line of "fairness" and belief that people will
do-the-right-thing somewhere short of the BSD license.  Why is it
so hard then to accept that the FSF draws the line short of the
GPLv2 after having gained practical experience with it
since its release?

You can argue till the cows come home the belief that _your_
restrictions are more fair, moral and reasonable than theirs.
But at the end of the day it's all just a matter of opinion about
what constitutes fair and reasonable.  You think its a fair trade
that you get code back, the FSF think its fair that people can hack
and run the code anywhere its used..  It all comes down to the
author of the code getting to attach whatever restrictions they
choose.

Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!62.111.101.3.MISMATCH!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Kevin Fox <Kevin....@pnl.gov>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:20:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8w0wJ-1hB-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8usx1-1Qa-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vK8A-1f8-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vKLd-21i-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vLHh-3pq-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Greylist: delayed 3604 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; 
Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:14:59 EDT
X-Possible-Spoof: True
X-Ironport-Av: E=Sophos;i="4.16,421,1175497200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="35378801"
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 (2.10.1-4.fc7) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 44
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>,
	"da...@lang.hm" <da...@lang.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:06:31 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <1181837191.21942.24.camel@zathras.emsl.pnl.gov>
X-Original-References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706100150080.6...@asgard.lang.hm>
	 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706131549000.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	 <or8xanl8jg....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	 <200706132042.02728.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 20:42 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
<SNIP>
> >
> > Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
> > from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?
> 
> Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on 
> their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* 
> covered by the GPL.

The hardware isn't directly covered by the GPL, correct. But, if they
want to use the software on the hardware, they have to comply with the
GPL. The software license can then influence hardware IF they want to
use it badly enough.

For example, the hardware is perfectly capable of being used to break
the terms of the GPL by being used to distribute a modified binary
without releasing the source. But the hardware's behavior is restricted
by the software for the betterment of all.

This whole argument is about the spirit of the GPL. Linus and others
think the spirit is one thing, the FSF guys think its something else.
Since the license is clearly owned by the FSF, I think they get the
final vote on what they "intended" it to be when they wrote it, no? If
they say they intended it to not allow Tivoization then believe them,
because they are the only ones that know what they were thinking when
they wrote it! The GPLv2 seems to allow it though. If Linus and friends
want to allow it, then they can stay with the GPLv2. For those who want
to disallow Tivoization, choose v3. No worries guys.

> Do you understand that, or do I need to break out the finger-puppets next ?

Guys, we are all friends here. No reason to be so insulting. Its just a
difference of opinion. People seem to be talking past each other instead
of to one another. This usually happens when people are basing their
underlying assumptions on different things and not listening to the
other. Please take a step back and think about it.

<SNIP>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!
newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:40:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 83
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>, Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> <200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de> <9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de> <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Sean wrote:
> 
> If you really believe that then why didn't you choose a BSD license
> for Linux? 

Because I think the GPLv2 is a great license.

And I don't like the FSF's radical world-view, but I am able to separate 
the license (the GPLv2) from the author and source of the license (rms and 
the FSF).

Why do people always confuse the two? The GPLv2 stands on its own. The 
fact that I disagree with the FSF on how to act has _zero_ relevance for 
my choice of license. 

The BSD license, as far as I'm concerned, is _horrible_ for any project I 
would use. I have actually released code under it, but never a "project". 
I've given some code of mine that I don't care about that much to the BSD 
projects, just because I didn't think that code really mattered, and I 
thought it would be stupid and small-minded not to let the BSD's use it.

But for a project I actually care about, I would never choose the BSD 
license. The license doesn't encode my fundamental beliefs of "fairness". 
I think the BSD license encourages a "everybody for himself" mentality, 
and doesn't encourage people to work together, and to merge.

Let me put this in source management terms, since I've also been working 
on a source control management project for the last few years: the BSD 
license encourages "branching", but the fact is, branching is not really 
all that interesting. What's interesting is "merging": the branching is 
just a largely irrelevant prerequisite to be able to merge.

The GPLv2 encourages *merging*. Again, the right to "branch" needs to be 
there in order for merges to be possible, but the right to branch is 
actually much less important than the right to "merge".

See? 

So I'm a *big* believer in the GPLv2. I think the GPLv2 is an almost 
perfect license. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with the FSF on 
everything else.

> Instead you chose a license which enforced the so called tit-for-tat
> policy you think is fair.  But people who prefer the BSD license may
> think you're a moron for forcing your political agenda (ie. tit-for-tat)
> on users of your code.

Oh, and some people did and do.

And you know what? That's PERFECTLY OK!

I think that the BSD license is wrong for me. Does that mean that people 
who choose the BSD license are wrong to do so? No. For *them* the choices 
that the BSD license makes may be the right ones!

> The point of all that being, you _do_ believe in enforcing restrictions 
> or you wouldn't like the GPL v2.

..  but I think that the software license I choose should be about the 
software, and about giving back in kind.

And the GPLv2 is _perfect_ for that.

And the GPLv3 is horrible.

And you know what? YOU can choose the GPLv3 for your projects. I'm not 
saying anything else. I'm saying that no, I was _not_ confused when I 
chose the GPLv2. I thought it was a good license 15 years ago. I thought 
it was a good license 10 years ago. I thought it was a good license five 
years ago. And I think it's a good license today.

Because it fundamnetally does what I think is fair. 

In a way that the GPLv3 DOES NOT.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.newsland.it!area.cu.mi.it!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:50:13 +0200
Message-ID: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 24
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:40:18 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <or645qfn99.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu> wrote:

> I think the proper limit is the boundary where the limit of the
> software is - because that's the only sane and globally workable way
> to stop the power-hungry.

But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
hardware.  I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
Software in it.

It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use
the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that
they're entitled to have.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.ngi.it!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:50:11 +0200
Message-ID: <8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 33
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:42:24 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orzm32cr8v.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de>
	<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de>
	<9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> ..  but I think that the software license I choose should be about the 
> software, and about giving back in kind.

> And the GPLv2 is _perfect_ for that.

> And the GPLv3 is horrible.

Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?


Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'?
(I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've
failed to elaborate on before)


The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in,
"I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must
respect others' freedoms as well".  Is this the "in kind" you're
talking about?  Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even
GPLv2?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!
xs4all!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: "Neshama Parhoti" <pnesh...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:50:12 +0200
Message-ID: <8w2yw-4wX-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2f4-46G-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yw-4wX-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2yw-4wX-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 20
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:42:16 +0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <912ec82a0706141142v2a7db410x16f18df16da855c2@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	 <orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	 <200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	 <20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	 <20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	 <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141045230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	 <20070614182356.GA11...@kroah.com>
	 <4f436aae0706141128y5cfc8e52nb52745dfe8820...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <dfb262380706141129u114111b1r5ff4fa1d843c2...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

Forgive me for a little off-topic question but I have a difficulty
to understand a technical issue about this all.

The Linux Kernel cannot easily switch licenses because of the
large amount of people involved in it (i.e. contributed code on which
they have copyright).

But many of FSF's GNU projects are similar - for example GCC has contributors
from many many companies and individuals, from which I presume there
are who might object to GPLv3.

So how come they can so easily move to GPLv3 ?
Don't they have to have permission from all of those contributors (many
of which are Linux companies and distributors who might prefer staying
at GPLv2) ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 73
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de> <9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de> 
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?

Do you need anything else?

But if by the question you mean "would you think the GPLv3 is fine without 
the new language in section 6 about the 'consumer devices'", then the 
answer is that yes, I think that the current GPLv3 draft looks fine apart 
from that.

> Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'?
> (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've
> failed to elaborate on before)

I've *not* failed to elaborate on that before. Not at all. 

Just google for

	torvalds tit-for-tat

and you'll see a lot of my previous postings. Trying to claim that this is 
somehow "new" is ludicrous. In fact, some of the google hits you find are 
from 2004, *loong* before the current GPLv3 discussion.

So your "failed to elaborate" is not a failure on my side. 

Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you 
see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do 
with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code.

How hard is that to accept?

I don't ask for money. I don't ask for sexual favors. I don't ask for 
access to the hardware you design and sell. I just ask for the thing I 
gave you: source code that I can use myself.

I really don't think my "tit-for-tat" or "give back in kind" is that hard 
to understand, is it?

And no, it's not a new concept. Neither is the fact that I've never agreed 
with the FSF's agenda about "freedom" (as defined by _them_ - I have a 
notion of "freedom" myself, and the FSF doesn't get to define it for me).

I don't call Linux "Free Software". I haven't called it that for close to 
ten years! Because I think the term "Open Source" is a lot better.

> The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in,
> "I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must
> respect others' freedoms as well".  Is this the "in kind" you're
> talking about?  Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even
> GPLv2?

I respect your freedom to design products around Linux. You can do 
whatever you damn well please - I just ask that you give the software back 
in a usable form. That's all I ask for.

And that's all the GPLv2 asks for. 

Which is why I selected the GPLv2 in the first place, and why I *still* 
think the GPLv2 is a wonderful license!

So I claim that the "freedoms" that the GPLv2 embodies are *greater* than 
the "freedoms" embodied in the GPLv3.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:10:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8w2RM-5fx-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-23@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2f4-46G-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2yw-4wX-29@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yw-4wX-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2yw-4wX-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Neshama Parhoti <pnesh...@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 30
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:03:35 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614190335.GA13261@kroah.com>
X-Original-References: <orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> <20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> 
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141045230.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<20070614182356.GA11...@kroah.com> 
<4f436aae0706141128y5cfc8e52nb52745dfe8820...@mail.gmail.com> 
<dfb262380706141129u114111b1r5ff4fa1d843c2...@mail.gmail.com> 
<912ec82a0706141142v2a7db410x16f18df16da85...@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:42:16PM +0300, Neshama Parhoti wrote:
>  Forgive me for a little off-topic question but I have a difficulty
>  to understand a technical issue about this all.
> 
>  The Linux Kernel cannot easily switch licenses because of the
>  large amount of people involved in it (i.e. contributed code on which
>  they have copyright).
> 
>  But many of FSF's GNU projects are similar - for example GCC has 
>  contributors
>  from many many companies and individuals, from which I presume there
>  are who might object to GPLv3.
> 
>  So how come they can so easily move to GPLv3 ?

The FSF required copyright assignment to themselves in order to accept
the changes from the developers.  So the FSF owns the whole copyright
and can change things whenever they want, to whatever license they want.

This is the exact opposite of the kernel in which all of the original
contributors own the copyright.

Hope this helps,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +0200
Message-ID: <8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 104
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:46:36 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <or1wgeco9v.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de>
	<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de>
	<9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?

> Do you need anything else?

No, I'm quite happy that this is all.

> But if by the question you mean "would you think the GPLv3 is fine without 
> the new language in section 6 about the 'consumer devices'", then the 
> answer is that yes, I think that the current GPLv3 draft looks fine apart 
> from that.

Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional
permission for Tivoization?

>> Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'?
>> (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've
>> failed to elaborate on before)

> I've *not* failed to elaborate on that before. Not at all. 

> Just google for

> 	torvalds tit-for-tat

> and you'll see a lot of my previous postings. Trying to claim that this is 
> somehow "new" is ludicrous.

I didn't.  But I've provided evidence that your prior musings on this
topic were wrong.  I wanted to give you an opportunity to review your
position under this new light.  I see you haven't changed it at all.

> Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you 
> see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do 
> with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code.

> How hard is that to accept?

Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the
GPL says.

Where do you think the GPL say that you get the source code back?

> I don't ask for money. I don't ask for sexual favors. I don't ask for 
> access to the hardware you design and sell. I just ask for the thing I 
> gave you: source code that I can use myself.

See, that's not what the license says.

The license says what you ask for is respect for other users'
freedoms.  Nothing whatsoever for you.  Only for users.

Freedom is in "in kind" payment, and it's not even a retribution, a
payback: it's payforward, or paysideways.

Do you understand why I find your reasoning hard to accept?

> And no, it's not a new concept. Neither is the fact that I've never agreed 
> with the FSF's agenda about "freedom" (as defined by _them_ - I have a 
> notion of "freedom" myself, and the FSF doesn't get to define it for me).

We don't have to agree on our individual definitions of freedom.  But
we're talking about a specific license that assigns a specific meaning
to the term "freedoms", and that's all this is about.

> I don't call Linux "Free Software". I haven't called it that for close to 
> ten years! Because I think the term "Open Source" is a lot better.

I can appreciate that you think it's better, but unfortunately it
appears to be playing a significant role in confusing your
interpretation of the GPL.  The GPL is not just about making the
source code visible, or even modifyable by others.  It's about
respecting others' freedoms.  No matter how badly you prefer Open
Source over Free Software, how badly you'd rather disregard the
freedoms in the spirit and in the legal terms of the GPL, you chose a
license designed to protect those freedoms, not only the ability to
see and modify source code.

>> The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in,
>> "I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must
>> respect others' freedoms as well".  Is this the "in kind" you're
>> talking about?  Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even
>> GPLv2?

> I just ask that you give the software back in a usable form. That's
> all I ask for.

I'm afraid that's not what the GPLv2 says.  There's no provision
whatsoever about giving anything back.  Not in the spirit, not in the
legal terms.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!zen.net.uk!
dedekind.zen.co.uk!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:00:11 +0200
Message-ID: <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 73
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:55:17 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614195517.GA4933@elte.hu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> 
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org


* Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > I think the proper limit is the boundary where the limit of the 
> > software is - because that's the only sane and globally workable way 
> > to stop the power-hungry.
> 
> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the 
> hardware.  I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free 
> Software in it.
> 
> It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use 
> the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that 
> they're entitled to have.

where does this false sense of entitlement come from? The hardware maker
ows you nothing but what is written into the GPLv2. Not more, not less.

(In fact, most hardware makers that utilize free software today give
back _substantially more_ to the community than the license requires!
For example they are currently the largest employers of free software
developers - although nothing in the license forces them to do so. Why?
Because the economic rules that the GPLv2 creates are healthy.)

you are not "entitled" to dictate the hardware's design (or any other 
copyrighted work's design), even if the license gives you the power to 
do so. By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the 
license too:

 - free on-site training for free software developers about the 
   hardware's inner workings. (It is justified to teach free software
   the same know-how as in-house engineers of the hardware maker. 
   Without this, users are hindered in their freedom to use and 
   effectively modify (fix) the software.)

 - free access to all the hardware diagnostics tools that the hardware 
   maker has. (Without that it might be impossible to modify the 
   software as efficiently as the hardware maker's own engineers can do 
   it.)

 - free samples of the hardware to be sent to free software developers,
   upon request. (The hardware maker's own engineers have free access to 
   samples. Otherwise free software users might not get the same level 
   of driver support as the hardware maker can achieve.)

 - free access to the hardware manufacturing equipment. (If i wish to 
   modify the free software in a way that requires more RAM than the 
   hardware has, i need access to the manufacturing equipment to produce 
   a new version of the hardware that can run that free software. The 
   hardware maker has this right and flexibility to modify the software, 
   so i should have that same right too.)

see how quickly your argument becomes totally ludicrous, if brought to 
its logical conclusion?

This "right to modify" and "have the same rights as the hardware maker" 
arguments are _totally_ bogus, they were made up after the fact, just 
because quite apparently RMS had a fit over Tivo and started this verbal 
(and legal) vendetta. The FSF is now attempting to rewrite history and 
pretends that this "always was in the GPLv2" and applies this newly 
thought up concept to the GPLv3 in a way that substantially departs from 
the spirit of the GPLv2. Which spirit the GPLv2 explicitly promised to 
uphold in Section 9. Which could make any contrary section of the GPLv3 
unenforceable, when applied to "GPLv2 or later" licensed software.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!
feeder.news-service.com!news.astraweb.com!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!
feeder.news.tin.it!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:20:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8w3XA-70q-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 36
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141311330.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de> <9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de> 
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or1wgeco9v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional
> permission for Tivoization?

No. I'm not stupid.

The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions.

So anybody who does "GPLv3 + additional permissions" is basically setting 
himself up for people taking those permissions away.

Since the Tivo kind of permission is in my opinion a *fundamental right* 
(or call if "freedom" if you want), then "GPLv3 + additional permissions" 
simply is not a viable alternative, since anybody could just decide to 
make improvements and strip those permissions.

The whole notion of "additional permissions" in the GPLv3 is totally 
pointless, since it's legally *exactly* the same as allowing dual 
licensing (which a license doesn't even have to spell out: you can 
dual-license *regardless* of the license!).

The reason for the "additional permissions" is just to make the LGPL go 
away, and become a sub-clause of the GPLv3.

If you really thought anything else, you're just uninformed and stupid, 
and didn't think things through.

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:00:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 40
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:48:39 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orzm329s9k.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu> wrote:

> * Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote:

> you are not "entitled" to dictate the hardware's design (or any other 
> copyrighted work's design),

Agreed.

> By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the
> license too:

No, you're confusing two very different situations.

In the case of TiVO, it's getting out of its way to make sure users
can't enjoy one of the freedoms that the license says it ought to pass
on.

In the cases you mentioned, the company would have to get out of its
way to put the other parties on equal grounds.

The former is bad, it's against the spirit of the license, it's a
further restriction.

The latter would be nice to have, but it would be wrong to demand it.

You're picturing the difference between blocking the way such that you
can't get there, and actually taking you there.  What the GPL seeks is
just that you don't get in the way.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.newsland.it!
area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:10:14 +0200
Message-ID: <8w4K2-8mr-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3XA-70q-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 24
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:06:02 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orir9q9rgl.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de>
	<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de>
	<9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or1wgeco9v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141311330.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional
>> permission for Tivoization?

> No. I'm not stupid.

> The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions.

So what?  You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt
to remove them, and you'll keep TiVO happy.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:30:20 +0200
Message-ID: <8w53u-lJ-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3XA-70q-27@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4K2-8mr-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 37
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141424160.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
 <200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de> <9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de> 
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or1wgeco9v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141311330.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orir9q9rgl....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > No. I'm not stupid.
> >
> > The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions.
> 
> So what?  You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt
> to remove them, and you'll keep TiVO happy.

You really aren't thinking, are you?

It's not about keeping Tivo happy. It's about keeping *me* happy. That's 
my primary (only) motivation for a license.

And let's go back to why I selected the GPLv2 in the first place, shall 
we?

I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release 
improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge 
those improvements if I want to.

Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT! By saying 
that I shouldn't accept contributions like that, you just INVALIDATED the 
whole point of the license in the first place!

Can you really not see that?

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:40:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8w692-21G-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3XA-70q-27@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4K2-8mr-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w53u-lJ-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 33
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:01 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orps3y88ru.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de>
	<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de>
	<9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or1wgeco9v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141311330.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orir9q9rgl....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141424160.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release 
> improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge 
> those improvements if I want to.

Hmm...  So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and
makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to
accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the
GPLv3?

> Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT! By saying 
> that I shouldn't accept contributions like that, you just INVALIDATED the 
> whole point of the license in the first place!

I understand.  I assumed you had some trust that people would abide by
your wish to permit TiVOization, and that authors of modifications
were entitled to make "whatever restrictions they wanted" on their
code.

Pardon me if I think your position is at least somewhat incoherent.
Can you help me make sense of it?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:00:17 +0200
Message-ID: <8w6sx-2q0-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3XA-70q-27@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4K2-8mr-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w53u-lJ-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w692-21G-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 56
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141545470.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> <200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
 <20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de> <9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de> <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <or1wgeco9v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141311330.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orir9q9rgl....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141424160.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orps3y88ru....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> Hmm...  So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and
> makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to
> accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the
> GPLv3?

You *cannot* make GPLv3-only contributions to the kernel.

I'm sorry, but that's how it is. You can take some of the code that is 
GPLv2+ in the kernel, and MOVE IT TO ANOTHER PROJECT, and use them there. 
But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel, 
the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is 
not compatible with v2.

This is no different from the fact that we have some drivers that are 
GPLv2/BSD licensed. Within the kernel, they are GPLv2. But on their own, 
you can choose to use them under the BSD license, make your changes to 
them, and release them commercially.

And correct - I cannot (and neither can anybody else) then accept those 
*non*GPLv2 changes back.

> I understand.  I assumed you had some trust that people would abide by
> your wish to permit TiVOization, and that authors of modifications
> were entitled to make "whatever restrictions they wanted" on their
> code.

Actually, normally I *do* have such a trust. It's why I have no problem 
with drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and in fact, I've told people that I 
don't want them to turn them into GPL-only, because that is simply not 
polite.

But I hold *myself* to higher standards than I hold others. And in 
particular, when it comes to people with a religious agenda, I don't 
expect them to be polite or take my feelings into account. I expect (from 
good history) that people with a license agenda will consider the license 
agenda more important than any hurt feelings, or any wishes of mine. 

> Pardon me if I think your position is at least somewhat incoherent.
> Can you help me make sense of it?

I'm giving up. I'm moving you to my "flamers" list, so that your emails go 
to a separate mailbox that I read weekly. I've wasted too much time with 
you, your arguments don't make sense, and you seem to refuse to even _try_ 
to understand my position, or respect the fact that my choice of license 
is MY choice, and that I actually have a brain of my own.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.newsland.it!
area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Rob Landley <r...@landley.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:20:05 +0200
Message-ID: <8w6LH-33Y-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vYbz-6bu-33@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZKg-8th-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
Organization: Boundaries Unlimited
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 39
X-Original-Cc: "Alan Milnes" <a...@itfoundation.org.uk>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:17:58 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706141917.58824.rob@landley.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<b200add30706140708p41e943dbm5d14ba52a6e0a...@mail.gmail.com> 
<200706141744.08408.bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday 14 June 2007 11:44:07 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:08, Alan Milnes wrote:
> > Agreed - if you want to take my work you are welcome as long as you
> > contribute back your changes.  That's the deal that GPL2 enforces and
> > why it has been so successful.
>
> That may be a side effect of the GPL, but it's actually not how the GPLv2
> works (nor is it the intention). "Contribute back" means upstream. There's
> no such provision in the GPLv2, you contribute only downstream. And there
> are cases where you don't need to contribute at all.

And the Linux kernel community has been familiar with this situation all 
along.  It's the bargain the kernel developers struck with each other a 
decade and a half ago.

Now the FSF is coming along and being Darth Vader: "I am altering the bargain.  
Pray I don't alter it any further."

> I think this above explains fairly well the "misunderstandings" that are
> appearing here. The GPL is not reflective (tit-for-tat), it's transient. If
> there's a loop in the transient propagation, it becomes reflective through
> the loop, but not by itself. This was the case in GPLv1, is the case in
> GPLv2, and will be the case in GPLv3.

That's not specifically a limitation of the GPL, that's a limitation of 
copyright law which forms the basis of the GPL.  It covers distribution, not 
usage.

GPLv2 eliminates the case where I have a modified binary I contributed to, but 
can't see the source code of those modifications.  This has the pragmatic 
effect of greatly reducing forking in a project, such as the Emacs/Lucid 
Emacs fork that inspired the "Emacs license" that became GPLv1.

Rob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!
newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:30:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8w6Vq-3g0-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMDl-4Or-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWI-5rw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNzo-6eU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNJ8-6qp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vOOP-8gn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZr2-84w-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w03D-GJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w19k-2nl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3XA-70q-27@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4K2-8mr-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w53u-lJ-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w692-21G-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w6sx-2q0-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 45
X-Original-Cc: Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:20:19 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orzm326s3w.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132140.13490.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614020827.GO3...@stusta.de>
	<200706132243.14651.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614025640.GQ3...@stusta.de>
	<9578.1181793...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20070614152034.GS3...@stusta.de>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706140850470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20070614131409.9a5800dc.seanl...@sympatico.ca>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<or1wgeco9v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141311330.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orir9q9rgl....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141424160.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orps3y88ru....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141545470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> Hmm...  So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and
>> makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to
>> accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the
>> GPLv3?

> You *cannot* make GPLv3-only contributions to the kernel.

I can make improvements to GPLv2+ files under GPLv3 (or rather will,
after GPLv3 is published).  And you wrote:

> I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release
> improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to
> merge those improvements if I want to.

So which is it?  Do you want to be able to use other people's
improvements, respecting the conditions you said they are legitimately
entitled to make, or is this not quite the whole story?

> But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel, 
> the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is 
> not compatible with v2.

I understand this very well.  You'd have to get the kernel upgraded to
GPLv3 in order to accept the contribution.

Likewise for any other contribution under any other GPLv2-incompatible
license.

So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
other people's improvements, cannot be taken without qualification.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!
erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:00:15 +0200
Message-ID: <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 93
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:50:04 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070614235004.GA14952@elte.hu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> 
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> 
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org


* Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > * Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > you are not "entitled" to dictate the hardware's design (or any 
> > other copyrighted work's design),
> 
> Agreed.

hey, that's progress. If you concede this single point then your 
arguments about the Tivo situation all fall like domino stones. Just 
watch it happen please:

> > By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the 
> > license too:
> 
> No, you're confusing two very different situations.
>
> In the case of TiVO, it's getting out of its way to make sure users 
> can't enjoy one of the freedoms that the license says it ought to pass 
> on.

the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused 
about how software licenses work.

the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.

the Tivo box is a piece of hardware.

a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader, 
a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free software bits 
are available for download.

the Tivo box is another (copyrighted) work, a piece of hardware.

so how can, in your opinion, the hardware that Tivo produces, "take 
away" some right that the user has to the GPL-ed software? Because they 
distribute the software and the hardware in the same package, and 
because the hardware (as _ALL_ hardware on this planet) has certain 
limitations? It was _your_ choice to buy that particular 
hardware+software combination, with whatever limitations the hardware 
has. One such limitation of the hardware might be that its color is 
butt-ugly pink. Another limitation might be that the buttons on it are 
too small for elderly people to press. A third limitation might be that 
it's not a general purpose computer and that it's not freely 
programmable by the end user. Bugger, what did you expect? Why didnt you 
buy a green PVR? Why didnt you buy a PVR with larger buttons? Why didnt 
you buy a general purpose computer? Did perhaps the Tivo look like a 
nice general purpose PC to you when you bought it?

> In the cases you mentioned, the company would have to get out of its 
> way to put the other parties on equal grounds.

how about quoting what i wrote and rebutting it specifically if you 
disagree with it, instead of writing a non-sequitor generality? You are 
involved in compiler development, so you should have the mental ability 
to follow logical arguments and you should be able to conduct a 
meaningful and objective discussion. Lets look at one of the examples i 
gave you:

> > - free access to all the hardware diagnostics tools that the 
> > hardware maker has. (Without that it might be impossible to modify 
> > the software as efficiently as the hardware maker's own engineers 
> > can do it.)

by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the software", on 
that piece of hardware it bought which had free software on it, correct? 
By your argument, the "right to modify the software" becomes meaningless 
if you cannot soft-upgrade your Tivo, if you have solder off the ROM to 
install your own ROM with a bootloader that does not do the SHA1 check, 
correct?

But by that _very same argument_, you are hindered _much more_ by not 
having proper hardware diagnostics tools and no access to hardware 
specifications. If you dont know how the hardware works, you cannot fix 
bugs in the software. So by your argument, the user has an inherent 
right to get on equal footing with the hardware manufacturer to modify 
the software on that specific hardware? There's no ifs and when. "having 
to solder off the ROM" is a "restriction on modifiability" just as much 
as "having less information about the hardware's inner workings". In 
fact, ask any kernel developer, "having to solder off the ROM" is a lot 
_smaller_ restriction than "having no information about the hardware's 
inner workings".

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:10:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 60
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:10:12 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070615011012.6c09066e@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

> the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused 
> about how software licenses work.

There is no such thing as a software licence. It is a copyright licence.

> the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.

You can GPL a new graphical logo you painted on your toilet seat, you can
GPL hardware designs. It might not be a good licence for either but it is
a valid licence.

> the Tivo box is a piece of hardware.

A Tivo box is a collection of literary works protected by copyright,
designs protected by design patents and copyright, names and logos
protected by trademarks, functionalities protected by patents and many
more things. These are the things that restrict what I may do with it and
how I may treat it. The collection of bits of metal and sand aren't
really of relevance in terms of licencing.

If it was a generic housebrick with none of these things attached then
within the law I can do what I like with it including copying it. A book
is a copyright work but the copyright is about the literary work and the
fact it is on paper is largely irrelevant. What determines your usage
rights for those pieces of paper are the literary work it carries not the
pieces of paper (unless made of a new patented paper material or similar)

> a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader, 
> a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free software bits 
> are available for download.

Except the keys - which may nor may not be required depending upon how a
court (not a mailing list) interprets the phrases

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it"

and

"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
the executable."

If you ask the legal profession about this seriously the answer you get
is bluntly "There is no caselaw I am aware of", which means that nobody
knows. Obviously Tivo and their legal counsel have formed an opinion and
have based their actions upon that opinion.

> the Tivo box is another (copyrighted) work, a piece of hardware.

You can't copyright hardware. Sorry but if you are going to try and have
a detailed logical argument you need to start from a rigorous base point.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:30:13 +0200
Message-ID: <8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 144
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:26:23 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070615012623.GA25189@elte.hu>
X-Original-References: <200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> 
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> 
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> <20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org


* Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty 
> > confused about how software licenses work.
> 
> There is no such thing as a software licence. It is a copyright 
> licence.

a "software license" is a common shortcut for "copyright license for 
copies of software works". It's a commonly used phrase. In fact it is 
used by the FSF itself too:

   http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

   "To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free 
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine 
    whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words."

> > the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
> 
> You can GPL a new graphical logo you painted on your toilet seat, you 
> can GPL hardware designs. It might not be a good licence for either 
> but it is a valid licence.

yeah - the GPL can be applied to most types of works recognized by 
copyright law.

> > the Tivo box is a piece of hardware.
> 
> A Tivo box is a collection of literary works protected by copyright, 
> designs protected by design patents and copyright, names and logos 
> protected by trademarks, functionalities protected by patents and many 
> more things. These are the things that restrict what I may do with it 
> and how I may treat it. The collection of bits of metal and sand 
> aren't really of relevance in terms of licencing.

If you are into technicalities then you fail to achieve that "rigorous 
base" by a wide margin. The Tivo box is not "a collection of literary 
works", it is a piece of matter, that also happens to contain fixated 
copies of literary (and other) works. The Tivo box is just one copy of 
those works - it is not "a collection of literary works". (Only if there 
was just a single Tivo box on the planet then could that box itself be 
meaningfully called a collection of works - a single and unique "master 
copy" of a work can be called the work itself.)

and that distinction, although fine, is very important. Look at GPLv2 
section 0:

" 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a 
  notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed 
  under the terms of this General Public License. "

the work is not the copy! The work is a more 'abstract' entity. The word 
"copyright" comes straight from that: the right to create specific 
copies of the work. And that's another reason why it's nonsensical to 
suggest that somehow the GPLv2 gives us the right to influence the 
hardware environment that the copy of the kernel got fixated into. We 
dont. ( unless that hardware environment too is a copy of a GPL-ed work 
or it is a copy of a work that is a modification of or derives from a 
GPL-ed work - but in the Tivo case it isnt. It's a collection of copies 
of works and derivation does not "jump" from the harddisk to the 
hardware. )

More down the technicalities road: the Tivo box also contains many items 
that are not copies of works protected by copyright: common types of 
screws that are not original forms of expression that are creative 
enough enough to gain copyright protection. Or numbers painted on 
various places. Or computer-originated random output. Copies of works 
that have entered the public domain and thus are not under the scope of 
copyright protection.

Neither is the Tivo box "collection of functionalities protected by 
patents", if then it is an embodiment of a method and apparatus, which 
invention is under patent protection (there are other types of patents 
as well), or which invention might not be under patent protection but 
have a patent application pending. (which might or might not issue at 
the end of the patent application process.)

> > a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader, 
> > a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free software bits 
> > are available for download.
> 
> Except the keys - which may nor may not be required depending upon how a
> court (not a mailing list) interprets the phrases
> 
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it"

i think it is clear what is intended with this section: that for example 
using automatic tools to strip out comments and obfuscating the source 
code does not fly, because what matters is the _form of the software_ 
the developer usually makes his modifications under. So this in essence 
defines the scope of the actual source code that must be made available 
so that it works on a general purpose computer, not the specific 
hardware environment under which the developer operates.

so i believe it is a ... fairly creative bending of the wording of this 
section to attempt to extend it to the hardware environment. You dont 
get my ssh keys either [*] that i use on my test-boxes, and those test 
boxes are very much part of the preferred way for me to produce kernel 
patches. But you get my kernel patches for sure! [ that is, if they dont 
crash the testboxes :-) ] Am i violating the GPLv2?

> and
> 
> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source 
> code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface 
> definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and 
> installation of the executable."

i think it is pretty clear what this section intends: not allowing 
people to become cute by stripping out of makefiles from the source 
tarball. If someone else tries to run that software on a general purpose 
computer (which has enough physical resources for that purpose) it 
should be possible.

But to read this to require a toaster that a piece of free software came 
installed on to be modifiable by the licensee who choses to excercise 
his rights under the GPL, in the same way as the original developer was 
able to modify that toaster is ... quite creative too i think, and leads 
to many absurd results.

> If you ask the legal profession about this seriously the answer you 
> get is bluntly "There is no caselaw I am aware of", which means that 
> nobody knows. Obviously Tivo and their legal counsel have formed an 
> opinion and have based their actions upon that opinion.

i guess i'll take Linus' word that the FSF's own lawyers agreed that the 
distribution of the Tivo box does not break the GPLv2. (although the 
cynic in me might say that this could be a self-serving position on 
their behalf done for tactical reasons, to increase the perceived 
'justification' for the GPLv3.)

	Ingo

[*] actually, you can get them if you want to, because i very much trust 
    you :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
headwall.stanford.edu!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:40:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8w8Xf-6g7-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vYbz-6bu-33@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZKg-8th-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w6LH-33Y-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Rob Landley <r...@landley.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 37
X-Original-Cc: Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de>,
	"Alan Milnes" <a...@itfoundation.org.uk>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:35:16 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orr6oe6luz.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<b200add30706140708p41e943dbm5d14ba52a6e0a...@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706141744.08408.bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
	<200706141917.58824....@landley.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote:

> Now the FSF is coming along and being Darth Vader: "I am altering
> the bargain.  Pray I don't alter it any further."

1) it can't possibly do that.  the Linux license is something that
only the Linux developers can decide.

2) I don't know how the FSF is approaching the Linux developers, but
what I've been personally trying to do in this infinite thread was
mainly to set the record straight that v3 did not change the spirit of
the license, like some have claimed.

3) Another thing I've tried to do was to try to figure out why Linux
developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals.  I
must admit I failed.  The presented reasons don't seem to distinguish
v2 from v3 to me, or rather make v3 sound better.

It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without
achieving any of my goals.  I hope it was at least useful or
enlightening to some.

I'll now try to step out of the discussion, but I guess I'm just as
addicted to flames.  I don't see that it's getting anywhere, and I
don't particularly enjoy the name calling.  And then, I was politely
invited to go away...

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:20:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
|<8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Organization: brong.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 26
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:11:49 +1000
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070615041149.GA6741@brong.net>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr> 
<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> 
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> 
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:50:04AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
> 
> the Tivo box is a piece of hardware.
> 
> a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader, 
> a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free software bits 
> are available for download.

#define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR

A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware.  The manufacturer has the
source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS.  The BIOS is required for the
machine to boot and run Linux.

Riddle me this (especially Alexandre, I'm just latching on to Ingo's
post because it has the right hook to grab) - are Dell required to give
out the source to the bios to enable people to have the same rights Dell
engineers do to modify the behaviour of the system?

Bron.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out04b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Theodore Tso <ty...@mit.edu>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:30:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8wcxO-3ne-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1sJ-2ML-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w2yv-4wX-23@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w2RL-5fx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3uD-67D-49@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3XA-70q-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4K2-8mr-37@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w53u-lJ-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w692-21G-19@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w6sx-2q0-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w6Vq-3g0-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso <ty...@mit.edu>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Sa-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-Sa-Exim-Mail-From: ty...@thunk.org
X-Sa-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 24
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Sean <seanl...@sympatico.ca>, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de>,
	Valdis.Kletni...@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, mi...@elte.hu
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:24:32 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070615052432.GC14...@thunk.org>
X-Original-References: 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141026150.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<orzm32cr8v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141153550.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<or1wgeco9v....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141311330.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<orir9q9rgl....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141424160.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<orps3y88ru....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141545470.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<orzm326s3w....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:20:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
> other people's improvements, cannot be taken without qualification.

No.  Linus and other Linux kernels might *want* to take other people's
improvements, but thanks to Richard Stallman's choices for GPLv3, they
can *not* legally take other people's improvements without violating
the GPLv3 license.  That's not their fault, it's the fault of people
who wrote the GPLv3 license, promulgated the GPLv3 license, and who is
attempting to convince everyone that the GPLv3 license is the only
valid license for Right Thinking FSF automatons to use.

There are plenty of things that I might *want* to do, that I am
legally prohibited from doing.  that doesn't change the fact that I
might want to do it.  The fact that GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2
is a tragedy, in the Greek sense.

						- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:40:13 +0200
Message-ID: <8wcHz-3yt-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 30
X-Original-Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:38:41 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orzm313hge.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> <20070615041149.GA6...@brong.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> #define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR

> A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware.  The manufacturer has the
> source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS.  The BIOS is required for the
> machine to boot and run Linux.

> Riddle me this (especially Alexandre, I'm just latching on to Ingo's
> post because it has the right hook to grab) - are Dell required to give
> out the source to the bios to enable people to have the same rights Dell
> engineers do to modify the behaviour of the system?

What is the license for the bios?  Does it say anything about 'no
further restrictions on the freedoms to modify and share the
software'?

Does it include any mechanisms to stop people from booting modified
versions of the Linux that ships with the machine?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.newsland.it!
area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:30:11 +0200
Message-ID: <8wepY-6hE-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wcHz-3yt-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Organization: brong.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 51
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:23:22 +1000
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070615072322.GA7594@brong.net>
X-Original-References: <orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> 
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> 
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> 
<20070615041149.GA6...@brong.net> 
<orzm313hge....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:38:41AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > #define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR
> 
> > A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware.  The manufacturer has the
> > source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS.  The BIOS is required for the
> > machine to boot and run Linux.
> 
> > Riddle me this (especially Alexandre, I'm just latching on to Ingo's
> > post because it has the right hook to grab) - are Dell required to give
> > out the source to the bios to enable people to have the same rights Dell
> > engineers do to modify the behaviour of the system?
> 
> What is the license for the bios?  Does it say anything about 'no
> further restrictions on the freedoms to modify and share the
> software'?

It's a necessary part of the boot process, without which Linux could
not be started.  Indeed, the Linux kernel interacts with it through a
(loosely, incompletely and frequently buggy) documented interface, much
like how binary modules interact with the linux kernel (even if they do
get loaded into the sacred ring0 execution space, ooh err)

What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
Linux kernel and then you run bang into some interactions that make you
think the bug might be in the BIOS instead.  Oh unhappy day, you don't
have access to the source code to the BIOS so you can't check.  Those
cretins at Dell (does a #define still work when it's 2 levels quoted?)
have denied your freedom to modify and debug the system they sold you
which is based _in_a_large_part_ on the GPL$mumble Linux kernel and
hence needs to be interoperable.

Regardless of your sophistry, it's a slipery slope by which Dell could
be forced to exert their corporate might back up the tree to the BIOS
vendor and get the right to release that BIOS source code to you or
stop distributing Linux on their machines. 

> Does it include any mechanisms to stop people from booting modified
> versions of the Linux that ships with the machine?

Maybe, and either way, a future update could, and you couldn't undo it
unless the BIOS flash system lets you "downgrade" again.

Bron.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!62.111.101.3.MISMATCH!news.germany.com!
aioe.org!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:10:16 +0200
Message-ID: <8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 106
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:10:07 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070615101007.0cbfd078@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-References: <200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
	<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

> > A Tivo box is a collection of literary works protected by copyright, 
> > designs protected by design patents and copyright, names and logos 
> > protected by trademarks, functionalities protected by patents and many 
> > more things. These are the things that restrict what I may do with it 
> > and how I may treat it. The collection of bits of metal and sand 
> > aren't really of relevance in terms of licencing.
> 
> If you are into technicalities then you fail to achieve that "rigorous 
> base" by a wide margin. The Tivo box is not "a collection of literary 
> works", it is a piece of matter, that also happens to contain fixated 

The physical matter is irrelevant. I am perfectly entitled to own, shape
and fiddle with sand and bits of metal. If I wish to remove the software
from the tivo, melt it down and cast the result into the shape of an
obscene gesture and wear it at the tivo shareholder meeting so be it. At
that point it would be my work made from melting the tivo that was the
protected work - same matter.

> copies of literary (and other) works. The Tivo box is just one copy of 
> those works - it is not "a collection of literary works". (Only if there 
> was just a single Tivo box on the planet then could that box itself be 
> meaningfully called a collection of works - a single and unique "master 
> copy" of a work can be called the work itself.)

Each copy is an instance of the work. My copy does not change its status,
nor its legal situation if someone rounds up every other tivo and melts
them down. I guess if you want to be pedantic the Tivo contains "an
instance of the work"

> the work is not the copy! The work is a more 'abstract' entity. The word 
> "copyright" comes straight from that: the right to create specific 
> copies of the work. And that's another reason why it's nonsensical to 
> suggest that somehow the GPLv2 gives us the right to influence the 
> hardware environment that the copy of the kernel got fixated into. We 

We have every legal right to do so. I am perfectly permitted to try
to grant you the right to reproduce my work only if you pay me $25 and the
reproductions are provided in a silver box with flashy blue lights. I am
perfectly permitted as author of a work to tell you "no". You as box
maker are perfectly at liberty to tell me where to go stick my offer and
just not use my work.

I can influence your hardware all I like. What I cannot do is influence
you in any way if you decide not to take any action involving my
copyright. Nor can I through copyright require certain kinds of condition
(eg control other works on the same media) as that requires contract law
and a proper contract, nor certain things that are deemed to be unlawful
by the state (The GPL gives me the right to modify the code to break into
the DoD, steal all their secrets and mail them to the Iraqi government,
the law of the USA not unsuprisingly takes that right away).

> More down the technicalities road: the Tivo box also contains many items 
> that are not copies of works protected by copyright: common types of 
> screws that are not original forms of expression that are creative 
> enough enough to gain copyright protection. Or numbers painted on 
> various places. Or computer-originated random output. Copies of works 
> that have entered the public domain and thus are not under the scope of 
> copyright protection.

And this matters because ?

> Neither is the Tivo box "collection of functionalities protected by 
> patents", if then it is an embodiment of a method and apparatus, which 
> invention is under patent protection (there are other types of patents 
> as well), or which invention might not be under patent protection but 
> have a patent application pending. (which might or might not issue at 
> the end of the patent application process.)

Ok I guess thats a question of level of abstraction, like being "an
instance"

> > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it"
> 
> i think it is clear what is intended with this section: that for example 

The Lawyers don't. As experts in their field I generally trust their view
on this. Also remember that lawyers assess legality not morality so there
are other questions to ask than "will I get sued".

> But to read this to require a toaster that a piece of free software came 
> installed on to be modifiable by the licensee who choses to excercise 
> his rights under the GPL, in the same way as the original developer was 
> able to modify that toaster is ... quite creative too i think, and leads 
> to many absurd results.

Agreed. But GPLv2 has many absurdities such as the way it handles
copyight notices. It wasn't designed when GUI apps were the norm, it
predates web hosted services and the GPL mobile phone was, I suspect, not
on the drafters radar let alone in their pocket.

If my toaster is ROM based then it is difficult to argue that the
preferred form for modification is anything but the code and usual build
files. If the system is writable then it is possible if not reasonable to
argue that the preferred form includes the information needed to load
that modified image, or should do so.

What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!
vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:20:11 +0200
Message-ID: <8wg8r-wx-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8u1ZT-2MW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vYbz-6bu-33@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vZKg-8th-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w6LH-33Y-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w8Xf-6g7-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 48
X-Original-Cc: Rob Landley <r...@landley.net>, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de>,
	"Alan Milnes" <a...@itfoundation.org.uk>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:23:31 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070615102331.35934956@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-References: <466A3EC6.6030...@netone.net.tr>
	<b200add30706140708p41e943dbm5d14ba52a6e0a...@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706141744.08408.bernd.pay...@gmx.de>
	<200706141917.58824....@landley.net>
	<orr6oe6luz....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

> 2) I don't know how the FSF is approaching the Linux developers, but
> what I've been personally trying to do in this infinite thread was
> mainly to set the record straight that v3 did not change the spirit of
> the license, like some have claimed.

The FSF have certainly tried to talk to me a bit about it - mostly about
some product called GNU/Linux which I had to tell them I'd never heard of
and wasn't involved in ;)

> 
> 3) Another thing I've tried to do was to try to figure out why Linux
> developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals.  I
> must admit I failed.  The presented reasons don't seem to distinguish
> v2 from v3 to me, or rather make v3 sound better.

At least one important one I think is this:

A large number of people contributed to the GPLv2 kernel. They did so on
the basis there was an agreement about how the result could and would be
used. The GPLv3 changes that agreement, whether for good or bad depends
on who you are and what you do.

What right does Linus or anyone else have to change the rules and
unavoidably harm some of the people who contributed on the basis of the
previous licence. Any community project is built around a set of
expectations and beliefs encoded in culture, licences, documents and so
on.

The kernel community was built around GPLv2. A large number of the people
involved did so for pragmatic not FSF reasons and are not part of FSF
culture. The fact that community isn't interested in GPL3 should not be a
suprise, nor should it be seen as it seems you see it to be a failure of
the GPL3. 

GPLv2 is how we've done it, it has been for fourteen years and numerous
people have contributed on that basis. Should we kick some of them out of
that community because a third party says "new license good". What
matters more to the project itself - respect for those who work on it and
their beliefs or an FSF attempt to strengthen free software protection ?
Thats an "ends and means" type question but I think it explains the
fundamental question very well.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!
erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:30:42 +0200
Message-ID: <8wpFg-7fK-139@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wcHz-3yt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wepY-6hE-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 29
X-Original-Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:26:34 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orabv110k5.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> <20070615041149.GA6...@brong.net>
	<orzm313hge....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070615072322.GA7...@brong.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> Linux kernel and then you run bang into some interactions that make you
> think the bug might be in the BIOS instead.

> have denied your freedom to modify and debug the system they sold you

If the bug is in the non-GPLed BIOS, not in the GPLed code, too bad.
One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.

The freedom the GPL defends is not the freedom to modify and debug the
system, but rather the covered software.

Now, if you find evidence that the "bug" is actually intentionally put
there to stop you from doing what you wanted with the software, then
there's clearly a violation of the spirit of the license, and you
might even have a case of copyright infringement, but IANAL.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out02b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news.panservice.it!
erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:40:16 +0200
Message-ID: <8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 24
X-Original-Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:18:19 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orir9p10xw.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
	<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu>
	<20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)

I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
this would be "mission accomplished".

The goal AFAIK is not to force people to enable others to hack the
hardware or software to their liking.  The goal is respect for the
freedoms, it's not making it more difficult for others to do what you
can and want to do.  I guess it also goes under the name "Golden
Rule".  Others might phrase it as tit-for-tat, or quid pro quo.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/\

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:20:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8ww3u-kb-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wcHz-3yt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wepY-6hE-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpFg-7fK-139@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Organization: brong.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 37
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:16:30 +1000
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070616021630.GA30660@brong.net>
X-Original-References: <20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu> 
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> 
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> 
<20070615041149.GA6...@brong.net> 
<orzm313hge....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070615072322.GA7...@brong.net> 
<orabv110k5....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> > Linux kernel and then you run bang into some interactions that make you
> > think the bug might be in the BIOS instead.
> 
> > have denied your freedom to modify and debug the system they sold you
> 
> If the bug is in the non-GPLed BIOS, not in the GPLed code, too bad.
> One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.

If the bug is in the non-GPLed binary module, not in the GPLed code, too
bad.  One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.

It's the same argument from the other direction.  The BIOS is linked
(inside the machine, sure) to the kernel for all intents and purposes
through a defined interface.  This doesn't affect the BIOS developers
who ship me a machine on to which I then install Linux, but it _does_
affect a hardware vendor who ships me a system with Linux pre-installed,
because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
Linux kernel and hence produced a combined work (remember, they reserve
the right to modify the BIOS, but don't give that that right to me) and
the BIOS should now come under the GPL.

Talk about your chilling effects.  It's a strong reason for vendors not
to ship GPL3 or GPL2[your interpretation] code pre-installed while the
legal boundaries of work combination are in any way grey.

Regards,

Bron.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!
area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:30:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8wBPA-x9-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
|<8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wcHz-3yt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wepY-6hE-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpFg-7fK-139@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8ww3u-kb-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 17
X-Original-Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:22:21 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orhcp8s402.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> <20070615041149.GA6...@brong.net>
	<orzm313hge....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070615072322.GA7...@brong.net>
	<orabv110k5....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070616021630.GA30...@brong.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> Linux kernel

How so?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:40:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8wDRl-3HN-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wcHz-3yt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wepY-6hE-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpFg-7fK-139@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8ww3u-kb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wBPA-x9-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Organization: brong.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 81
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:31:30 +1000
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070616103130.GD32405@brong.net>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> 
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> 
<20070615041149.GA6...@brong.net> 
<orzm313hge....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070615072322.GA7...@brong.net> 
<orabv110k5....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070616021630.GA30...@brong.net> 
<orhcp8s402....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> > Linux kernel
> 
> How so?

(I'm going to refer to Linux as GPLix from here on since this argument
 is more general than a specific GPLed operating system)

Er, they installed it in the same piece of equipment, and the kernel
couldn't function without it in that work.  What's more 'linked' than
that.  It's a vital part of the boot process on that piece of hardware
in exactly the same way that the public-key check is a vital part of
the boot process.

If your printer^wPC isn't doing what you want and you know how to
change it to do what you want but it needs a BIOS patch.  Guess what,
you can't do it - your vendor can.  By using GPLix as part of their
boot process along with their non-GPL BIOS, they're subverting the
freedoms that the user should have in being able to control the entire
boot process.

Right?  Or are you unclear about the fact that there's a big grey area
cutting through this part of usage, and Linus sat down pretty clearly on
one side of it while you're arguing that the goalposts should be "where
I feel that my rights to make changes are being infringed".

While the vendor reserves the ability to change components of the
system (post sale, i.e. a BIOS flash update) and doesn't hand those
same rights on to you, they have partially Tivoised (hoover, kleenex,
you've got nothing on these guys for having your name associated with
a concept) the hardware.  By logical extention of your arguments over
the past few days, this denies them the ability to use any GPLed
software in 'the spirit of the licence' anyware on the machine because
they are denying you rights regarding the instance of the product
they shipped to you that they are retaining for themselves.  The very
freedoms you so vocally claim.

Now, the position I'm seeing here is that the above behaviour (every
single hardware manufacturer that has ever shipped a machine with
pre-installed Linux) violates the spirit of the GPL by the "retaining
exclusive freedoms to modify shipped product" rule, and hence their
BIOS is in the doghouse unless they either:

a) offer full source code access and rights per the holy spirit ghost
   of the GPL; or

b) deny themselves the ability to every offer a patch to said BIOS if
   bugs are found 


Point (b) is also exactly on topic for the discussion of enforcing
legal safety obligations in hardware on a peripheral rather than the
software drivers.  It's requiring that these limitations be placed in
a technically inferior location to hack around a legal "bug".  (A bug
is in the eye of the beholder, please wear glasses while cycling, it's
your own responsibility to protect your eyes)


Er, I think I'm done.  Yes.


Executive summary:

a) by not providing the BIOS source code but retaining the right to 
   change the BIOS the vendor is linking the GPLix kernel and the 
   BIOS (you can't run the kernel without it)

b) legislating intent is fraught.

c) by your arguments, (a) is violating the spirit and (b) is necessary
   to get around that.

Bron.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:20:09 +0200
Message-ID: <8wK6t-5dj-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wbs2-1IJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wcHz-3yt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wepY-6hE-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpFg-7fK-139@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8ww3u-kb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wBPA-x9-9@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wDRl-3HN-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 67
X-Original-Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:14:29 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orhcp7rfd6.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> <20070615041149.GA6...@brong.net>
	<orzm313hge....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070615072322.GA7...@brong.net>
	<orabv110k5....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070616021630.GA30...@brong.net>
	<orhcp8s402....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070616103130.GD32...@brong.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> 
>> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
>> > Linux kernel
>> 
>> How so?

> Er, they installed it in the same piece of equipment, and the kernel
> couldn't function without it in that work.

I see what you're getting at.  You're thinking of a license that
doesn't respect the idea of "mere aggregation", right?

For starters, this wouldn't evidently not qualify as an Open Source
license, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't qualify as a Free Software
license either.

> By using GPLix as part of their boot process along with their
> non-GPL BIOS, they're subverting the freedoms that the user should
> have in being able to control the entire boot process.

You're pushing the "freedom to change" too far.  Sure, I'd like to be
able to do that, and I prefer hardware that lets me do it, but it's
not like this BIOS in the scenario you described is being used as a
means to stop me from modifying the GPLed software.

I have never said that including a GPLed piece of software should
grant users the right to modify anything whatsoever in the system, or
grant them control over the entire system.  Others have, but it's not
true, it just shows how much mis-information is floating around.

All the GPL stands for is to defend the freedom of the users over the
particular program it applies to.  You can't impose further
restrictions on the user's ability to modify what *that* software
does.

If you wanted to change something else, but this something else is not
covered by the license, and is not being used to contradict the terms
of the license, well, too bad, you lose.

> b) deny themselves the ability to every offer a patch to said BIOS if
>    bugs are found 

> Point (b) is also exactly on topic for the discussion of enforcing
> legal safety obligations in hardware on a peripheral rather than the
> software drivers.

> It's requiring that these limitations be placed in a technically
> inferior location to hack around a legal "bug".

I don't think this last sentence is true.  If you implement hardware
locks that prevent modification of the software even by yourself, then
you're in compliance with the terms of the GPLv3dd4.  But IANAL.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.newsland.it!
area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:40:11 +0200
Message-ID: <8wLlV-75B-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wDRl-3HN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wK6t-5dj-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 87
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:31:58 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706161431.58245.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070616103130.GD32...@brong.net> 
<orhcp7rfd6....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Saturday 16 June 2007 13:14:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> >> > Linux kernel
> >>
> >> How so?
> >
> > Er, they installed it in the same piece of equipment, and the kernel
> > couldn't function without it in that work.
>
> I see what you're getting at.  You're thinking of a license that
> doesn't respect the idea of "mere aggregation", right?
>
> For starters, this wouldn't evidently not qualify as an Open Source
> license, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't qualify as a Free Software
> license either.

This situation is a general description that actually fits what TiVO has done. 
The difference in the TiVO case is that you (and everyone that thinks like 
you - ie: believes that the "tivoization" language in GPLv3 is good) 
equate "replace entirely" with "modification" when, in fact, the two are 
entirely separate acts.

> > By using GPLix as part of their boot process along with their
> > non-GPL BIOS, they're subverting the freedoms that the user should
> > have in being able to control the entire boot process.
>
> You're pushing the "freedom to change" too far.  Sure, I'd like to be
> able to do that, and I prefer hardware that lets me do it, but it's
> not like this BIOS in the scenario you described is being used as a
> means to stop me from modifying the GPLed software.
>
> I have never said that including a GPLed piece of software should
> grant users the right to modify anything whatsoever in the system, or
> grant them control over the entire system.  Others have, but it's not
> true, it just shows how much mis-information is floating around.
>
> All the GPL stands for is to defend the freedom of the users over the
> particular program it applies to.  You can't impose further
> restrictions on the user's ability to modify what *that* software
> does.

"You can't impose further restrictions on the user's ability to modify what 
*that* software does."

I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on 
*modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on 
*REPLACEMENT* of the program. If you're going to argue that "replacement == 
modification" then it is an *easy* argument to make that every time someone 
*replaces* linux with a proprietary system the proprietary system magically 
becomes GPL'd.

And no, this isn't a logical fallacy on my part. It's on your part - all I've 
done is take the logic you have provided and extend it to cover a different 
situation.

DRH

> If you wanted to change something else, but this something else is not
> covered by the license, and is not being used to contradict the terms
> of the license, well, too bad, you lose.
>
> > b) deny themselves the ability to every offer a patch to said BIOS if
> >    bugs are found
> >
> > Point (b) is also exactly on topic for the discussion of enforcing
> > legal safety obligations in hardware on a peripheral rather than the
> > software drivers.
> >
> > It's requiring that these limitations be placed in a technically
> > inferior location to hack around a legal "bug".
>
> I don't think this last sentence is true.  If you implement hardware
> locks that prevent modification of the software even by yourself, then
> you're in compliance with the terms of the GPLv3dd4.  But IANAL.



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out01b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:40:15 +0200
Message-ID: <8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070519)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ID: EXvptyZAwe4Z7+OiIH3gBj+LGS+cb7JkGttMNcwHR+yltibbYmGykC
X-Toi-Msgid: bb780142-5996-4145-b48e-cd4e2333d985
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 25
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:33:16 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <4673CA7C.5040207@t-online.de>
X-Original-References: <200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>	
<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>	
<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>	
<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>	
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>	
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>	
<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> 
<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu> 
<20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
> 
> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
> this would be "mission accomplished".

This is insane.  You start with a lofty ideal involving "freedom", and
when you end up with a meaningless technicality (and in technical terms
a change for the worse) you consider it a victory?

Yes, I know that this is what happens in politics (look here, our laws
had an effect!), but I have more respect for you than to think you fall
for these kinds of games.  I do not wish to revise my opinion.


Bernd

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out01a.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
feed.cgocable.net!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!
newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:00:14 +0200
Message-ID: <8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8vMjZ-4rc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vMWG-5rw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vNSM-6Td-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8vUB0-wD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8vV3T-17F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 39
X-Original-Cc: Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:57:59 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orlkejrg4o.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <200706132121.04532.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orhcpbjnqj....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706132304.21984.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<20070614112329.3645c...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070614103846.GA7...@elte.hu>
	<or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
	<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu>
	<20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
>> 
>> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
>> this would be "mission accomplished".

> This is insane.  You start with a lofty ideal involving "freedom", and
> when you end up with a meaningless technicality (and in technical terms
> a change for the worse) you consider it a victory?

It accomplishes the mission in that everyone is on the same grounds.
Same freedom for everyone.  If the vendor tries to keep a privilege
over the software to itself, denying it to its customers, it's failing
to comply with the spirit of the license.  It's really this simple.
Is this so hard to understand?

The goal is not to push vendors away from GPLed software.  If they
can't permit modification of the software, that's fine, they can still
accomplish this.

What they can't do is deny it to customers while they retain it to
themselves.  This is unfair, this is wrong, and this disrespects
users' freedoms.  Therefore, the GPL should not permit it.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:20:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8wL2w-6GA-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 45
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:19:02 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070616181902.GB21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> 
<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> 
<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu> 
<20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de> 
<orlkejrg4o....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:57:59PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
> >>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
> >> 
> >> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
> >> this would be "mission accomplished".
> 
> > This is insane.  You start with a lofty ideal involving "freedom", and
> > when you end up with a meaningless technicality (and in technical terms
> > a change for the worse) you consider it a victory?
> 
> It accomplishes the mission in that everyone is on the same grounds.
> Same freedom for everyone.  If the vendor tries to keep a privilege
> over the software to itself, denying it to its customers, it's failing
> to comply with the spirit of the license.  It's really this simple.
> Is this so hard to understand?
> 
> The goal is not to push vendors away from GPLed software.  If they
> can't permit modification of the software, that's fine, they can still
> accomplish this.
> 
> What they can't do is deny it to customers while they retain it to
> themselves.  This is unfair, this is wrong, and this disrespects
> users' freedoms.  Therefore, the GPL should not permit it.

How the hell does that improve the situation for users?  Alexandre,
please realize that you are preaching to non-believers.  I realize
that you have accepted the FSF credo, but if you want that conversation
to go anywhere you have to separate the things you believe in from
the things you can rationally explain.  Apologetics of your variety is 
not going to cut it.  _Can_ you separate the things relying on your
beliefs from the things that can stand on their own?  If you can't
do that, please stop wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.  It's
a secular maillist; what any of us might happen to believe in is personal
and frankly, none of your damn business.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
headwall.stanford.edu!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:00:13 +0200
Message-ID: <8wLFj-7tF-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wL2w-6GA-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 82
X-Original-Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:53:26 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <or1wgbras9.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
	<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu>
	<20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de>
	<orlkejrg4o....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070616181902.GB21...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 16, 2007, Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> How the hell does that improve the situation for users?

Maybe it doesn't.  How does it make it worse?

Maybe just providing an incentive for the vendor to respect users'
freedoms will do the trick, and *some* vendors will do, while those
who can't will keep the status quo.

And then we're likely to be better off.

> I realize that you have accepted the FSF credo, but if you want that
> conversation to go anywhere you have to separate the things you
> believe in from the things you can rationally explain.

I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.

I've already explained that the anti-Tivoization provision is in line
with it.


I've already asked in what sense Tivoization makes for a better
tit-for-tat, and got no reply whatsoever, rational or otherwise.

I have already hinted at why it makes things worse.


You don't have to believe what I believe to analyze the arguments
rationally, just like I don't have to believe what you believe to
analyze your arguments rationally.

We may still get to different conclusions as to what is better, if we
have different values guiding us.

But whatever conclusion you arrive at won't change the plain fact that
Tivoization is against the spirit of the GPL, because it is a means to
restrict users' freedoms that the GPL is designed to defend.


It's really this simple.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything
other than that the spirit of the GPL is not being changed at all.
You don't have to agree with that spirit in order to accept this
simple fact.  And while people keep on spreading this lie, I'll be
inclined to point out that it's false.


See, this is not about promoting GPLv3, or "pushing it down your
throats", as some have claimed.  This feeling is just a symptom of the
high rejection for the FSF ideology, that appears to blind so many
smart people from rational reasoning on matters that touch the FSF
ideology.

This is not even about showing that the letter of GPLv2 prohibited
Tivoization.  My arguments concerning Tivoization were all about the
spirit of the license, and unfortunately so many people seem unable to
tell the spirit from the letter that they keep on moving the
discussion to legal technicalities, and then they shoot straw men and
feel happy that they shot an argument.  But the argument stands
untouched, and the straw man was already dead before.  Wasted time.


As far as I'm concerned, Linux is released under GPLv2, and that's a
good thing.  It's unlikely to change.  I wish it changed for better,
but that's just me, and my contributions to Linux in term of code are
really minimal.  I have no say on that.


But as someone involved in the GPLv3 development, it saddens me when
people lie about it.  I feel it's my moral obligation to set the
record straight.  And that's what I've been trying to do.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.newsland.it!area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:30:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8wM8e-8lI-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wDRl-3HN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wK6t-5dj-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wLlV-75B-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 32
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:27:37 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <ortzt7pumu.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070616103130.GD32...@brong.net>
	<orhcp7rfd6....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706161431.58245.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:

> I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on 
> *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on 
> *REPLACEMENT* of the program.

Technicality.  In order for the software to remain free (which is what
the GPL is all about), the user must not be stopped from adapting the
software to suit his needs and running it for any purpose.  TiVo
places restrictions on it.  It's really this simple.

And then, TiVo doesn't really prohibit replacement.  You can replace
it as much as you like; just not as conveniently as TiVo can replace
it.  And then, if you do, it won't run, because it's not signed with a
key that they omit from the source code.  And they do this in order to
prevent the user from changing the behavior of the Free Software that
they use, while they keep this ability to themselves.

If these are not restrictions on the freedoms that the GPL is designed
to protect to ensure that Free Software remains Free for all its
users, I don't know what is.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!
news.newsland.it!area.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:20:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wLlV-75B-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wM8e-8lI-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 70
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:17:36 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706161817.36657.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706161431.58245.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<ortzt7pumu....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
> > *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
>
> Technicality.  In order for the software to remain free (which is what
> the GPL is all about), the user must not be stopped from adapting the
> software to suit his needs and running it for any purpose.  TiVo
> places restrictions on it.  It's really this simple.

Your arguments are all based on technicalities, so why are you complaining 
when I do the same?

As it stands there is *NOTHING* that singular distinction makes all the 
difference in the world. What you are arguing - based on your *BELIEF* that 
such *REPLACEMENT* is a modification. 

By the way, Alexandre, I'm not so much of an *IDIOT* as to believe that you 
don't understand the difference. You are arguing about it because you *WANT* 
the difference to not exist. You are arguing about it because it makes your 
argument that what TiVO did broke the "spirit" of the license. If you want 
I'll go dig out the exact place where RMS said that he didn't care about 
hardware. 

You want another "technicality"? How about one that you *AGREED* is valid? 
That your right to configure a device ends at the point where it connects to 
a network? Well, unless you want to sacrifice *ALL* the stuff that makes a 
TiVO actually worth using, you *HAVE* to connect it to their network. At that 
point *ALL* of its configuration details - yes, even the Operating System - 
fall under their control. In the US there are laws that restrict this right 
when applied to "telecommunications" companies - but TiVO *isn't* 
a "telecommunications" company.

> And then, TiVo doesn't really prohibit replacement.  You can replace
> it as much as you like; just not as conveniently as TiVo can replace
> it.  And then, if you do, it won't run, because it's not signed with a
> key that they omit from the source code.  And they do this in order to
> prevent the user from changing the behavior of the Free Software that
> they use, while they keep this ability to themselves.

If your argument is that the final output binary is created by combining the 
signing key and an interrim binary then you *MIGHT* have a point. The simple 
fact is that that argument depends on whether the kernel itself is modified 
by the signing process or if the signing process generates a separate 
signature which is then verified as part of the boot process.

> If these are not restrictions on the freedoms that the GPL is designed
> to protect to ensure that Free Software remains Free for all its
> users, I don't know what is.

"Free as in beer" is the phrasing used, I believe. I see nothing in that TiVO 
has done that negates this. I do disagree with it - if I buy a TiVO box, I 
own it and should be able to do what I want with it. However, this does not 
negate the fact that it does connect to their network, and as a device that 
does such they are allowed to configure it in *ANY* manner they choose. What 
you and the FSF are trying to do is strip that right from them.

If you have such a respect for peoples freedoms - and I don't doubt that you 
actually believe you do - then why are you stripping freedoms from people?

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:20:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8wTt4-2T6-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wL2w-6GA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wLFj-7tF-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 96
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706161952280.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> <orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> <20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
 <20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu> <20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu>
 <orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de>
 <orlkejrg4o....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20070616181902.GB21...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
 <or1wgbras9....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.

No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't 
*agree* on the "spirit".

You think that there is only one "spirit", and that you own the code-book, 
and that your spirit is thus the only right one.

This is where we started. The same way you seem to think that "freedom" 
has only the meaning *you* and the FSF give it, and that somehow the 
spirit of the GPL includes the "four freedoms" that aren't even 
_mentioned_ in it.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

But equally importantly, it's not even *relevant*. Nobody is suing the FSF 
for contract violation for changing the spirit. Yes, people have brought 
out the argument that the GPLv3 actually even changes the spirit, and you 
don't seem to realize that people can have different opinions. You just 
repeat YOUR OWN OPINION about the spirit over and over again.

But even if the spirit changes, so what? The GPL doesn't actually say 
"same in spirit". It says "similar in spirit", implying that the spirit is 
"similar". 

In other words, your arguments are wholly irrelevant.

> I've already explained that the anti-Tivoization provision is in line
> with it.

.. and we have already explained to you that it's irrelevant. 

So let's get back to the *real* issue:

 - The GPLv2 was ok with Tivo.

   I really tried to explain to you *why* that was, but by now, I can't be 
   bothered any more. Even if you cannot understand it, just accept it. 

   And if you have a hard time accepting it, just accept the fact that the 
   FSF thinks Tivo cannot be sued, which is just another way of saying 
   "they didn't actually break the license".

 - *I* think Tivo is fine. Other people think Tivo is fine. Other people 
   have told you they think what Tivo did is fine. Some people have even 
   said that they don't like Tivo, but that they don't think the license 
   should stop Tivo.

 - The GPLv3 tries to stop Tivo.

Instead of mumbling about your spirit and feelings (I need to be a whole 
lot more drunk before I start caring), how about you look at those three 
statements, and then admit that you see why the people in bullet#2 think 
that

	GPLv2 is a better license than GPLv3

I don't *care* how you mangle the "spirit of the GPLv2", because that was 
never the issue.

What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2, and 
that I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I?

So just stop *whining* about this.

The GPLv3 is the worse license, for anybody who thinks that what Tivo did 
should not be against the license. It really is that simple.

And again: you don't even have to *like* Tivo to realize that the license 
itself shouldn't try to spell out some anti-Tivo measures. As I've _also_ 
tried to explain, the anti-Tivo measures are actually more than just "anti 
Tivo". They are also "anti-anything-else-that-might-want-to-lock-down-a-
specific-version-for-security-or-regulatory-reasons".

But in the end, it really hinges on a very simple concept:

 - Not everybody thinks like you or agrees with you.

 - In particular, the original copyright author in the kernel does *not* 
   think like you, and *realized* that he doesn't really like the FSF 
   religious agenda years and years ago, and made sure that the FSF cannot 
   control the licensing of the Linux kernel.

If you don't accept those two simple *facts*, I don't know what's wrong 
with you.

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:20:05 +0200
Message-ID: <8wVlb-5JF-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wL2w-6GA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wLFj-7tF-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTt4-2T6-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 162
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:09:01 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orabuzkw0i.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
	<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu>
	<20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de>
	<orlkejrg4o....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070616181902.GB21...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
	<or1wgbras9....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706161952280.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.

> No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't 
> *agree* on the "spirit".

They don't have to.

Just like nobody but you can tell why you chose the GPLv2, nobody but
RMS can tell why he wrote the GPL.  And the intent behind writing the
GPL is what defines its spirit.

> Yes, people have brought out the argument that the GPLv3 actually
> even changes the spirit,

And that's the point that I'm fighting here.  It does not change the
spirit.  It's still ensuring that Free Software remains Free:
respecting and defending the four freedoms defined in the Free
Software definition.

>> I've already explained that the anti-Tivoization provision is in line
>> with it.

> .. and we have already explained to you that it's irrelevant. 

It is relevant.  It was the point that my participation was intended
to address.

I guess it is just too hard to accept that an FSFer could not be
trying to force GPLv3 down your throat or some other such nonsense.

>  - The GPLv2 was ok with Tivo.

There's disagreement about this, even among developers of the kernel
Linux, and you know it.

I know you're always right and I pretend to respect that ;-), but why
do you think your opinion should prevail over theirs?  Don't you
realize that they're as entitled as you are to enforce the license,
and in the way *they* (not you) perceive and meant to license their
code?

And then again, this is not something I'm overly concerned about.  I
probably don't have enough contributions to Linux for my take on it to
make any difference whatsoever.

This is not the real issue at all.  The real issue, that brought me
here and got you to name calling me and the FSFs, is that there were
false claims about the GPLv3 that I wanted to dispell, particularly
the point about its changing the spirit.  The anti-tivoization
provisions are in the spirit of the GPL, and so much so that a number
of people perceive them as already covered by GPLv2.

>  - The GPLv3 tries to stop Tivo.

A minor nit, but no, it doesn't.  It tries to stop the practice of
tivoization on programs licensed under the GPLv3.

TiVo has a number of choices, and so do other tivoizers, even if they
adopt software under the GPLv3.


> What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,

Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?
That's what I don't understand.  This is so obviously contradictory to
me that it's almost funny, and you've so far dodged my questions about
this and refrainied from commenting on this contradiction so much that
it looks like it's a blind spot in your mind.

> I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I?

Yes.  That's precisely why I don't understand your stance.  Because I
expect you to be intelligent, but starting from your stated motivation
for choosing GPLv2, and from the consequences of the anti-tivoization
provisions, you'd satisfy your motivations better with v3.

Tivoization reduces the motivation for customers of tivoized devices
to improve the software.  You end up with contributions from the
manufacturers alone, instead of from all the user community.

With explicit anti-tivoization provisions, you may very well lose
contributions from some tivoizers, but for those who change their
stance, you gain far more contributors.  You don't need a lot of
tivoizers to take the path of freedom for you to win big time in the
bottom line that you posed as the only relevant one.

You see why I don't understand your position?

> They are also "anti-anything-else-that-might-want-to-lock-down-a-
> specific-version-for-security-or-regulatory-reasons".

It's not, this is false.  "Lock down" is permitted.  It just won't
work if the business model depends on modifying stuff behind the
user's back.  But other cases of "lock down" are permitted:

  this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party
  retains the ability to install modified object code on the User
  Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

>  - Not everybody thinks like you or agrees with you.

>  - In particular, the original copyright author in the kernel does *not* 
>    think like you, and *realized* that he doesn't really like the FSF 
>    religious agenda years and years ago, and made sure that the FSF cannot 
>    control the licensing of the Linux kernel.

I hereby acknowledge, one more time, that I accept these facts.

Since we're in such a good mood now, would you mind acknoledging some
other simple facts, such that we can end this discussion?

- the spirit of the GNU GPL, written by RMS in the FSF, is to keep
Free Software Free, respecting and defending the freedoms of users of
software licensed under the GPL

  It can serve other goals, and some people, yourself included, chose
  it for other reasons, but the intent, the spirit of the license is
  what its author intended it to be, just like the intent behind each
  contribution to Linux is whatever the author of the contribution
  meant it to be.

- GPLv3 does not change this spirit

  On the contrary, it advances this spirit.  Given that defending
  these freedoms is the mission of the FSF, it's no surprise that it
  does revise the GPL to do it.  It's not like it has a choice.


- Tivoization reduces the incentive for contributions

  Customers of tivoized devices can't enjoy or even test the benefits
  of their modifications to the software on the device where the
  modifications would be most useful for them.


- anti-tivoization provisions encourage tivoizers who can respect
  users' freedoms to do so

  If the choice is that or not being able to change the software for
  the user or adopting another platform, they may very well choose
  this option, and then you get not only more users and mind-share,
  but also far more contributors, and the community of developers that
  forms around the product benefits the former-tivoizer as well.


Are these so hard to accept?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!
feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!newsfeed-0.progon.net!
progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:20:12 +0200
Message-ID: <8x8sc-SB-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wL2w-6GA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wLFj-7tF-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTt4-2T6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVlb-5JF-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii
X-Mimedefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 92
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706171157400.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu> <orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu> <20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
 <20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu> <20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu>
 <orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de>
 <orlkejrg4o....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20070616181902.GB21...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
 <or1wgbras9....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
 <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706161952280.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <orabuzkw0i....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org



On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
> 
> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
> love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?

You apparently do not understand "quid-pro-quo".

Another way of stating it might be "same for same".

A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never 
said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole 
point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND!

I do *not* ask for hardware access.

I do *not* ask for money.

	And the reason I'm harping on "money" is that "money" is something 
	*different* from what I give out. I give out software. I don't 
	expect money in return.

	Money is *irrelevant*. It's allowed (and certainly much 
	appreciated), but it's not required.

See? Can you agree with that? Can you agree that that is actually part of 
what the whole "open source" spirit is all about (I'll avoid the word 
"free software", since you have defined it so rigorously personally that 
it makes no sense any more).

Now, replace "money" with "access to the hardware", and read the exact 
*same* sentences again:

	And the reason I'm harping on "access to hardware" is that "access 
	to hardware" is something *different* from what I give out. I give 
	out software. I don't expect access to hardware in return.

	Access to hardware is *irrelevant*. It's allowed (and certainly 
	much appreciated), but it's not required.

See? 

Exact same words. Exact same spirit. Just using "access to hardware" 
instead of "money".

You have been showing that you have a really hard time understanding that 
very *simple* argument.

> > I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I?
> 
> Yes.  That's precisely why I don't understand your stance.

If you don't understand it after the above, I really can only say:

	"You are either terminally stupid, or you're not allowing yourself 
	 to see an obvious argument, because it destroys your world-view".

The latter is very possible. It's a very human thing. It's why apparently 
a lot of people in the US have a hard time believing in evolution. Are 
they terminally stupid? Yeah, that is quite possible. But it is also 
possible that they are of average intelligence, and they just cannot 
mentally _afford_ to follow the argument - it destroys the silyl stories 
they heard as children, and requires them to think too hard about the 
veracity of the source.

		Linus

PS. Since some people talked about the game theory aspects of 
"tit-for-tat", I'd like to point out that what is usually considered an 
even *better* strategy than "tit-for-tat" is actually "tit-for-tat with 
forgiveness".

In particular, "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is considered better when 
there is ambiguity (like "communication difficulties" - does that sound 
familiar?) in the encouter. You allow some leeway, and don't always 
retaliate!

So the FSF is DOING THE WRONG THING! They are turning "tit-for-tat" not 
into "tit-for-tat with forgiveness", but into "tit-for-tat with preemptive 
strikes".

That is a *LOSING* strategy in game theory. So a game theorist could very 
well argue with good reason to believe he is right that the GPLv3 is 
actually a worse license even from a purely theoretical standpoint!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:50:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8x8V8-1uK-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w3Ef-6kA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w4Af-7RI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w7oz-3P0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8w7ya-4ii-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8w8ND-64F-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wL2w-6GA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wLFj-7tF-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTt4-2T6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVlb-5JF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8x8sc-SB-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 84
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:46:44 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <or3b0qgy8r.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614195517.GA4...@elte.hu>
	<orzm329s9k....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070614235004.GA14...@elte.hu>
	<20070615011012.6c090...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<20070615012623.GA25...@elte.hu>
	<20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu>
	<orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de>
	<orlkejrg4o....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070616181902.GB21...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
	<or1wgbras9....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706161952280.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<orabuzkw0i....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706171157400.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
>> 
>> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
>> love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?

> You apparently do not understand "quid-pro-quo".

> Another way of stating it might be "same for same".

> A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never 
> said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole 
> point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND!

Yes.  And this was precisely what meant when I wrote "quid-pro-quo"
above.

> If you don't understand it after the above, I really can only say:

> 	"You are either terminally stupid, or you're not allowing yourself 
> 	 to see an obvious argument, because it destroys your world-view".

> The latter is very possible. It's a very human thing.

/me hands Linus a mirror


Serious, what's so hard to understand about:

  no tivoization => more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized
  computers => more users make useful modifications => more
  contributions in kind

?

Sure, there's a downside too:

  no tivoization => fewer contributions from manufacturers that demand
  on tivoization


My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so
you are better off without tivoization.


  
> it is also possible that they are of average intelligence, and they
> just cannot mentally _afford_ to follow the argument - it destroys
> the silyl stories they heard as children, and requires them to think
> too hard about the veracity of the source.



> PS. Since some people talked about the game theory aspects of 
> "tit-for-tat", I'd like to point out that what is usually considered an 
> even *better* strategy than "tit-for-tat" is actually "tit-for-tat with 
> forgiveness".

> In particular, "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is considered better when 
> there is ambiguity (like "communication difficulties" - does that sound 
> familiar?) in the encouter. You allow some leeway, and don't always 
> retaliate!

> So the FSF is DOING THE WRONG THING! They are turning "tit-for-tat" not 
> into "tit-for-tat with forgiveness", but into "tit-for-tat with preemptive 
> strikes".

Wrong.  It enables copyright holders to decide whether forgiveness is
appropriate, rather than forcing them to forgive.  Being forced to
forgive deception is not tit-for-tat, and it's a losing strategy.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Andrea Arcangeli <and...@suse.de>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:50:05 +0200
Message-ID: <8xcFn-7nO-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8wfYQ-kD-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wpOw-7tk-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wENx-5if-61@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wJNc-4xk-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wL2w-6GA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wLFj-7tF-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTt4-2T6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wVlb-5JF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8x8sc-SB-39@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8x8V8-1uK-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 88
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_...@t-online.de>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:40:14 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070617234014.GA4542@v2.random>
X-Original-References: <20070615101007.0cbfd...@the-village.bc.nu> 
<orir9p10xw....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<4673CA7C.5040...@t-online.de> 
<orlkejrg4o....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070616181902.GB21...@ftp.linux.org.uk> 
<or1wgbras9....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706161952280.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<orabuzkw0i....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<alpine.LFD.0.98.0706171157400.14...@woody.linux-foundation.org> 
<or3b0qgy8r....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:46:44PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so
> you are better off without tivoization.

Your perception is quite flawed.

I see where you come from, I know your intentions are absolutely
genuine, but there's not a chance that by changing the GPL in any way
you want, you can move the needle on companies whose only real long
term threat is so broad and fundamental as the very existence of the
Internet! Stay away from any DRM issue since that is not a licensing
problem, and is a problem that is up to the economy to solve, all we
have to do is to write good code and grow the userbase, those
discussions are a total waste of time, and infact they're in the
interest of the pro-DRM people. See apple removal of drm mandated by
market forces (sure not mandated by the threat of GPLv3 ;).

Then (besides tivo that as said at the top is not a problem at all
regardless if it's legal or not with gplv2) there's the myth of
trusted computing apocalypse that promises an unbreakable DRM and no
computer capable of running a modified linux anymore, which cannot
materialize. At every respectable linux user group there's somebody
giving that TC speech. The thing, if I'm wrong and it really happens,
it means something went so fundamentally wrong that the symptom will
be a totally minor problem compared to the real cause that triggered
it. If nothing else wait the scenario to remotely materialize before
declaring preventive war to something purely theoretical, and _then_
release a v4 addressing it.

If all conspiracy theories should be added to v3 as potential threat,
then I would recommend to as well add a clause that if you're an alien
that wants to use some GPLv3 code in your alien-technology-driven ship
built to destroy planet earth, you can't unless you provide us with a
copy of your ship open specifications showing how to upload our
improved GPLv3 software to it, so we have a chance to build one too to
defend ourself LOL. Doesn't that sound fair enough too? I mean just in
case ;)

Back to the tivoization issue, the crypto key is the least of the
problems, the major linux cellphone vendor ships binary only modules
and I wouldn't even know how to upgrade the kernel regardless of any
crypto signature and even ignoring the binary only modules. If selling
the locked embedded package allows new market segments to grow around
linux (even if that's not _yet_ an ideal hacker-hackable cellphone)
that's still a net-positive because it sends a message to the venture
capital that may exploit the fact they're closed to grow market share
(see openmoko, not a "perception" of mine).

Open source licenses shouldn't forbid usages, not even the blatantly
unethical ones, "evil" is not tangible (I guess everything would be
easier in life if it was).

Let's tackle on the only real _tangible_ problem of gplv2 known
todate, that they can address with a few liner fix to gplv2. They
should _only_ do that, and release quickly a strightforward v3 that
nobody could ever pretend to argue about (they should have done that
already, more than half an year passed already and most of the time at
least here has been spent on purely theoretical things). They still
can do the right thing. All this arguing, busybox forking, are all
signals that something is wrong, it should start to ring a
bell. Frankly I think we all love the FSF and the GPL and we want to
help to avoid mistakes (I know I do).

I'm totally in favor to __experiment__ with the DRM clause but do that
on a new license. Leave GPL as it has always been, it works just
great, fix the only single tangible issue known todate, the rest is
all about conspiracy theories and at definining evil. Perfect fairness
cannot be obtained in this world, no matter what license or system you
apply.

Those developers that have been so totally trustful and used "any
later version" deserve better treatment (they deserve a quick fix too)
and you should obey to the promise of only modification in detail
according to point 9 or the "any later version" will not be
enforceable because outlawing a single usage means going the opposite
route of "promoting the reuse of the software" (written in gplv2,
search for it).

This whole email is irrelevant with the fact tivo may or may not be
legal with gplv2 depending on different countries. The single attempt
of trying to reduce the gpl userbase with new restriction, doesn't
qualify as a modification in detail here. For the record, I said the
first time quite anonymously in my blog back in Oct 06.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:00:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wLlV-75B-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wM8e-8lI-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 86
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:49:56 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orodjfmjsr.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706161431.58245.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<ortzt7pumu....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:

> On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
>> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
>> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
>> > *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
>> 
>> Technicality.  In order for the software to remain free (which is what
>> the GPL is all about), the user must not be stopped from adapting the
>> software to suit his needs and running it for any purpose.  TiVo
>> places restrictions on it.  It's really this simple.

> Your arguments are all based on technicalities, so why are you complaining 
> when I do the same?

My arguments are based on the intent behind the license, its spirit.

You keep falling back to legal technicalities, that have zero to do
with the interpretation of the intent.

That's why.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

> As it stands there is *NOTHING* that singular distinction makes all the 
> difference in the world. What you are arguing - based on your *BELIEF* that 
> such *REPLACEMENT* is a modification. 

Maybe modification is not the best word, because it carries a lot of
legal background from copyright law.

How about adaptation.  From freedom #1, freedom to study the software
and adapt it to your needs.  Do you see how tivoization imposes an
artificial restriction to this freedom?

> If you want I'll go dig out the exact place where RMS said that he
> didn't care about hardware.

This is still true.  This is not about the hardware.  This is about
the software, and how the user is stopped from adapting it to her own
needs, while the vendor saves this prerogative to itself.

> That your right to configure a device ends at the point where it
> connects to a network? Well, unless you want to sacrifice *ALL* the
> stuff that makes a TiVO actually worth using, you *HAVE* to connect
> it to their network.

So, if you visit www.fsfla.org, I 0w|\| your computer?

If you join a bit torrent, I can replace the operating system on your
computer?

Sorry, I don't buy that.  You're leaving something out of this
picture, and that's probably quite important.

>> If these are not restrictions on the freedoms that the GPL is designed
>> to protect to ensure that Free Software remains Free for all its
>> users, I don't know what is.

> "Free as in beer" is the phrasing used, I believe.

Huh?  Are you implying that the Free Software foundation wrote this
meaning "zero cost"?

> If you have such a respect for peoples freedoms - and I don't doubt
> that you actually believe you do - then why are you stripping
> freedoms from people?

Because they're disrespecting others' freedoms.  Freedoms aren't
absolute.  One's freedom ends where another's freedom starts.
Tivoization exceeds the hardware manufacturer's freedoms and
disrespects users' freedoms and disrespect some author's ethical
intent.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
213.92.8.5.MISMATCH!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:10:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 152
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:06:13 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <200706162306.14516.dhazelton@enter.net>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:49:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:
> >> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions
> >> > on *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction
> >> > on *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
> >>
> >> Technicality.  In order for the software to remain free (which is what
> >> the GPL is all about), the user must not be stopped from adapting the
> >> software to suit his needs and running it for any purpose.  TiVo
> >> places restrictions on it.  It's really this simple.
> >
> > Your arguments are all based on technicalities, so why are you
> > complaining when I do the same?
>
> My arguments are based on the intent behind the license, its spirit.

But each of those arguments is based on a technicality. By your reasoning I 
could kill everybody living in the middle east to stop the wars there and not 
be wrong - after all, you say "But I'm using those technicalities to show the 
letter and spirit of the license" - ie: "The ends justify the means".

> You keep falling back to legal technicalities, that have zero to do
> with the interpretation of the intent.
>
> That's why.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

Do you know how many lawyers make a living because the "spirit" of a law has 
no legal weight?

> > As it stands there is *NOTHING* that singular distinction makes all the
> > difference in the world. What you are arguing - based on your *BELIEF*
> > that such *REPLACEMENT* is a modification.
>
> Maybe modification is not the best word, because it carries a lot of
> legal background from copyright law.
>
> How about adaptation.  From freedom #1, freedom to study the software
> and adapt it to your needs.  Do you see how tivoization imposes an
> artificial restriction to this freedom?

Nothing stopping people from doing that with the GPL'd software running on a 
TiVO. 

> > If you want I'll go dig out the exact place where RMS said that he
> > didn't care about hardware.
>
> This is still true.  This is not about the hardware.  This is about
> the software, and how the user is stopped from adapting it to her own
> needs, while the vendor saves this prerogative to itself.
>
> > That your right to configure a device ends at the point where it
> > connects to a network? Well, unless you want to sacrifice *ALL* the
> > stuff that makes a TiVO actually worth using, you *HAVE* to connect
> > it to their network.
>
> So, if you visit www.fsfla.org, I 0w|\| your computer?
>
> If you join a bit torrent, I can replace the operating system on your
> computer?
>
> Sorry, I don't buy that.  You're leaving something out of this
> picture, and that's probably quite important.

Nope. Because I'm connecting the the *INTERNET*. The internet is not owned by 
any one person or "legal entity" - therefore there is nobody that can demand 
a certain configuration. Note that I also made it a point to mention that it 
only applies to certain classes of networks - in the US there are laws that 
remove the "complete control over configuration" from telecommunications 
companies. But get a cable-modem in the US and your ISP has the right to 
configure it in *ANY* way they choose.

The TiVO service runs as a network - and a non-public one at that. They own 
the network, they control what hardware and with what configurations is 
allowed to connect. Whats more is that they have the right to actively 
control that configuration.

You do realize, Alexandre, that you can't make me look stupid by just cutting 
out a part of a statement I've made and making silly comments about it. If 
you are going to quote something I've said, make sure you quote the *ENTIRE* 
effective part and not just the bit you think will make you look smart. All 
it does is make you look like an ass.

> >> If these are not restrictions on the freedoms that the GPL is designed
> >> to protect to ensure that Free Software remains Free for all its
> >> users, I don't know what is.
> >
> > "Free as in beer" is the phrasing used, I believe.
>
> Huh?  Are you implying that the Free Software foundation wrote this
> meaning "zero cost"?

Nope. I was making sure that you understood your own propaganda. "Free as in 
beer" - if I get a free beer I'm getting the beer, not the glass. If you 
aren't intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying: I get the software 
and *ALL* rights to it that everyone *BUT* the licensor has under the GPL. 
What you are doing is saying "It is what is said, but not what is meant."

The funniest part of it is that you are claiming that the "spirit" of the GPL 
is to force each licensee to give up *MORE* rights than they are asked to. In 
other words... TiVO is a licensee of the kernel - they received certain 
rights through the GPL that they are required to pass along to anyone they 
give a copy to. Those rights are passed on. What they don't do is allow a 
copy of the "covered work" to run on the hardware - copies that might do 
things like allow people to break the copyright on content that the box can 
create copies of.

The thing is, I already know your answer. It's in the mail that this is a 
reply to. The "spirit of the law" is something everyone wishes people would 
follow. But each person has their own interpretation of what the "Spirit" is 
and there is no real way to know what the "spirit" of a law is. Because 
language is such a slippery beast even the writings of the people that wrote 
the law can't define what the "spirit" of a law is. I've repeated myself to 
many times about the unreliability of human testimony on the topic. So what 
is being done by you and everyone else that is part of the FSF is doing is 
saying "Our view of the 'Spirit' of the license is the only correct one. 
Everyone else is wrong."

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. The FSF is also entitled to it's 
opinion. But as has been shown, that opinion may not be correct. And it is a 
simple to prove fact that a large number of people hold a different opinion. 

> > If you have such a respect for peoples freedoms - and I don't doubt
> > that you actually believe you do - then why are you stripping
> > freedoms from people?
>
> Because they're disrespecting others' freedoms.  Freedoms aren't
> absolute.  One's freedom ends where another's freedom starts.
> Tivoization exceeds the hardware manufacturer's freedoms and
> disrespects users' freedoms and disrespect some author's ethical
> intent.

By this logic I could release software under a license that says "if you want 
to use this in a commercial product you have to send any person who buys the 
product a copy of the complete technical specifications - including any 
cryptographic keys - on request." And claim that its protecting the rights of 
the end-user in regards to my software. - Oh, wait, the FSF beat me to it 
with the GPL3!

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:40:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 113
X-Original-Cc: Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:31:00 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orwsy3l0jv.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net> wrote:

> But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.

They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
four freedoms that the GPL was designed to respect and defend.

Each version of the GPL may miss the mark.  But this doesn't mean
that's not their spirit.

> Do you know how many lawyers make a living because the "spirit" of a law has 
> no legal weight?

Yes.  What's your point?

All I'm trying to show is that the tivoization provision in GPLv3 is
not a departure from the spirit of the GPL.

Is this so hard to understand?


I'm not trying to say why Linus and others chose the GPLv2.

I'm not trying to determine what their motivations were.

I'm not trying to force them to change to GPLv3.

I'm not trying to convince them that tivozation is a bad thing.

I'm only trying to show that anti-tivozation is in line with the
spirit of the GPL.


tivoization, which means to restrict a user's ability to adapt the
software to their own needs and run it for any purpose, while the
hardware manufacturer keeps this to itself, is against the spirit of
the GPL.

Not whatever reasons the Linux developers had to release their code
under GPLv2.  But the spirit that the authors of the GPL tried to
encode in it.

Is this so difficult to accept?

>> > That your right to configure a device ends at the point where it
>> > connects to a network? Well, unless you want to sacrifice *ALL* the
>> > stuff that makes a TiVO actually worth using, you *HAVE* to connect
>> > it to their network.

>> So, if you visit www.fsfla.org, I 0w|\| your computer?

> Nope. Because I'm connecting the the *INTERNET*.

Is the connection with the TiVo network not through some other
carrier too?

> The TiVO service runs as a network - and a non-public one at that. They own 
> the network, they control what hardware and with what configurations is 
> allowed to connect. Whats more is that they have the right to actively 
> control that configuration.

As long as this doesn't violate any other laws or agreements they've
entered, that is.  And this includes license agreements.

> You do realize, Alexandre, that you can't make me look stupid by
> just cutting out a part of a statement I've made and making silly
> comments about it.

Didn't mean to, sorry if it seemed that way.  I still don't quite
understand the distinction you're trying to make.

> The funniest part of it is that you are claiming that the "spirit"
> of the GPL is to force each licensee to give up *MORE* rights than
> they are asked to.

No, the GPL doesn't force anything.  It can't.  All it does is to
demand respect for others' freedoms in case one decides to modify or
distribute the software.  It's only if you do modify or distribute the
software that you must respect others' freedoms.  And TiVo does
distribute the software.  But it doesn't respect the freedoms.

It might as well stop distributing the software.

> What they don't do is allow a 
> copy of the "covered work" to run on the hardware

It's not just that.  They actively stop you from being able to do so.
They do this so as to prevent you from changing the behavior of the
program that runs on that box.  They disrespect the freedoms to adapt
the program and to run it for any purpose.

> By this logic I could release software under a license that says "if
> you want to use this in a commercial product you have to send any
> person who buys the product a copy of the complete technical
> specifications - including any cryptographic keys - on request."

And, guess what, you *can* do that.  And it's up to the hardware
manufacturer to decide whether they want to use distribute your
software along with the hardware or not.

Whether this would qualify as a Free Software license, and whether it
would be in the spirit of the GPL, is a separate issue.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!
newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!bofh.it!
news.nic.it!robomod
From: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:20:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8wVle-5JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
<8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 51
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:14:51 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070617051451.GD21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orwsy3l0jv....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:31:00AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 
> I'm not trying to say why Linus and others chose the GPLv2.
> 
> I'm not trying to determine what their motivations were.
> 
> I'm not trying to force them to change to GPLv3.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince them that tivozation is a bad thing.
> 
> I'm only trying to show that anti-tivozation is in line with the
> spirit of the GPL.
 
... and anti-tivoization section shows all symptoms of going in wrong
direction, *whether* *tivo* *is* *good* *or* *not*.  It's full of
kludges exactly because it tries to carve out a notion that can only
be determined on case-to-case basis and not by generic definition.
And no, that's not a matter of bad wording in that section.

I don't _care_ whether it breaks spirit, etc. - it's a fundamentally bad
idea for completely independent reasons.  Even if one thinks that tivo
in particular ought to be sued into the ground at some point.

Besides, it's fscking *pointless* for userland stuff.  If you insist that
e.g. glibc will infect by linking, you've just created a huge problem for
any GPLv2 userland code, which will make all bad blood about kernel look
trivial in comparison.  If you do not, then you've lost all leverage anyway;
kernel won't switch, libraries are OK, toolchain is obviously OK for building
code with any license... what's left?  The glorious /bin/cp?  Sorry, it would
work as usual, subject to open(2) not returning EACCES.  Just as on any
system.  Just what is it going to prevent?  Hell, they can slap selinux on
the box, protect what they want to protect, use crypto-loop to prevent offline
modifications of filesystem and hide the key in firmware.

Either GPLv2 is sufficient in given case (and e.g. Alan decides to go
after company in question), or you've at most created a moderate amount
of work rewriting the checks they are doing into a different form (if
that).  Good job.  In the meanwhile, you've got a load of ill-defined
verbiage around installation instructions.  I.e. a lovely fodder for
potential abusers.

Sod it.  GPLv3, with your involvement in its development or not, sucks
rocks, thanks to what you call anti-tivoization section.

-- 
How many GPL spirits can dance on the end of a pin?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!vlad-tepes.bofh.it!
bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:00:17 +0200
Message-ID: <8wVY1-6uX-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVle-5JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 56
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:56:24 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orps3vjf93.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orwsy3l0jv....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070617051451.GD21...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 17, 2007, Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> It's full of kludges exactly because it tries to carve out a notion
> that can only be determined on case-to-case basis and not by generic
> definition.

I agree it's a very difficult definition.  I'm not sure I'm happy with
the wording in place right now.  But I very much like and agree with
its purpose, and it is in line with the goal of respecting and
defending users' freedoms, which is what the FSF cares mostly about,
and must care about, because it's its official and public mission.

> I don't _care_ whether it breaks spirit, etc.

That's what I care about, and I've seen false claims that it does.

Can you please acknowledge that it doesn't, such that I can feel I've
fulfilled my goal of dispelling the myth that the GPLv3 changes the
spirit of the GPL?

> GPLv3, with your involvement in its development or not, sucks rocks,
> thanks to what you call anti-tivoization section.

Is it correct to say that you share Linus' opinion, that the only
problem with the GPLv3 is the anti-tivoization provision?


To make this more concrete, if there was a hypothetical GPLv2.9,
consisting of GPLv3dd4 minus the "installation information"
requirements for user products, (i) Would you consider it a better
license than GPLv2?  (ii) Better for Linux?  (iii) Enough to go
through the trouble of switching?

I'd love answers to these 3 questions from others too.

Just in case, I shall point out, one more time, that I'm speaking for
myself, not for the FSF, not for FSFLA, not for Red Hat.  The
questions above are to satisfy my personal curiosity.  I don't make
any commitment whatsoever to take the answers up to the FSF, and I
don't want to set any expectations as to whether they could or would
make any difference, at this point, about the outcome of GPLv3.

If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
running short.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8xrEs-5j0-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVle-5JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wVY1-6uX-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 23
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:45:49 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070618154549.GB6041@kroah.com>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orwsy3l0jv....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070617051451.GD21...@ftp.linux.org.uk> 
<orps3vjf93....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
> right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
> running short.

If you honestly think that the "anti-tivo" clause in GPLv3 will be
removed just because we start to add more comments to that page, then
you are sorely mistaken.  From the very _beginning_ of the v3 process
the kernel developers have showed their objection to that section of the
license, and we were told, to our face, with no uncertian terms, that it
was going to stay, in one form or another, no matter what we thought or
said about it.

So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web forms after
that?

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!
newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.cid.net!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8xrEs-5j0-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVle-5JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wVY1-6uX-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 23
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:45:49 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070618154549.GB6041@kroah.com>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orwsy3l0jv....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070617051451.GD21...@ftp.linux.org.uk> 
<orps3vjf93....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
> right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
> running short.

If you honestly think that the "anti-tivo" clause in GPLv3 will be
removed just because we start to add more comments to that page, then
you are sorely mistaken.  From the very _beginning_ of the v3 process
the kernel developers have showed their objection to that section of the
license, and we were told, to our face, with no uncertian terms, that it
was going to stay, in one form or another, no matter what we thought or
said about it.

So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web forms after
that?

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:30:06 +0200
Message-ID: <8xu9g-QV-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVle-5JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wVY1-6uX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8xrEs-5j0-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 82
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:20:39 -0300
X-Original-Message-ID: <orabuxcefc.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net>
	<orwsy3l0jv....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070617051451.GD21...@ftp.linux.org.uk>
	<orps3vjf93....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<20070618154549.GB6...@kroah.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 18, 2007, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
>> right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
>> running short.

> If you honestly think that the "anti-tivo" clause in GPLv3 will be
> removed just because we start to add more comments to that page, then
> you are sorely mistaken.

I agree that adding comments wouldn't accomplish this.

But many objections were about the wording, about cases that perhaps
shouldn't be covered, and these could make a difference.

> From the very _beginning_ of the v3 process the kernel developers
> have showed their objection to that section of the license, and we
> were told, to our face, with no uncertian terms, that it was going
> to stay, in one form or another, no matter what we thought or said
> about it.

This sounds about right.

> So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web forms after
> that?

If you're adamantly favorable to permitting any form of Tivoization
whatsoever, don't bother.

Others who aren't so fundamentalist as to reject anti-tivozation on
ideological grounds, in spite of evidence that such measures would
advance the very pragmatic interests they claim to place above
ideology, might be willing to help shape these provisions so
that they don't hurt those who respect users' freedoms, but accomplish
the goal of keeping Free Software Free.


Seriously, looking only at the downside of anti-tivoization (tivoizer
might turn us down), without even acknowledging that, should the
tivoizer change practice and respect users' freedoms, you'd be able to
get far more contributions from all those users, is typical minimax
strategy.  That's the worst case for the prisoner's dilemma.  That's
not pareto optimal.  It may not be a losing strategy, but it's not the
best strategy for everyone.


Every time you enable someone to disrespect other users' freedoms WRT
your software, you cut yourself out of some contributions that user
could make.  Even if you completely disregard the moral and ethical
aspects of software freedom, the open source mentality inherently
depends on the notion of respect for others' freedoms.  You only reap
the benefits of open source when the user gets the freedoms respected.
That's why preventing people from hiding source code, from using other
technical measures, and from using copyright, patents and
anti-circumvention laws, to stop or decrease the possibility or the
incentive for a user to contribute to your community is not only a
great ethical and moral stance, it is also self-beneficial, in the
very sense that Linus and others claim.


So although I like to highlight the moral and ethical aspects, and
others like to highlight the self-beneficial mechanics of the system,
they are really two sides of the same coin.

And if you didn't think so, if you didn't believe in increasing the
incentive and enablement for a user to cooperate with you by means of
stopping others from removing such incentive or possibilities, you
wouldn't be using a license that established such conditions, you'd be
using a more liberal license.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!
news.newsland.it!news.cdlan.net!erode.bofh.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0200
Message-ID: <8xvoK-2Ob-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVle-5JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wVY1-6uX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8xrEs-5j0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8xu9g-QV-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 31
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:48:13 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070618194813.GA11691@kroah.com>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orwsy3l0jv....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070617051451.GD21...@ftp.linux.org.uk> 
<orps3vjf93....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070618154549.GB6...@kroah.com> 
|<orabuxcefc....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:20:39PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:
> > From the very _beginning_ of the v3 process the kernel developers
> > have showed their objection to that section of the license, and we
> > were told, to our face, with no uncertian terms, that it was going
> > to stay, in one form or another, no matter what we thought or said
> > about it.
> 
> This sounds about right.
> 
> > So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web forms after
> > that?
> 
> If you're adamantly favorable to permitting any form of Tivoization
> whatsoever, don't bother.

For the record, I completely feel that what Tivo did was both legally
correct[1], and the correct thing to do for their system, and would
fight _very_ hard any attempt to change the Linux kernel's license that
would prevent this usage model.

So I will not bother anymore.

greg k-h

[1] The FSF lawyers also agree with this.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Theodore Tso <ty...@mit.edu>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:17 +0200
Message-ID: <8xxqF-62p-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <8w1Cq-30b-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wOMM-4bG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wSdF-NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wTjo-2Id-1@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wTMs-3gD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8wVle-5JF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8wVY1-6uX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <8xrEs-5j0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> 
<8xu9g-QV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8xvoK-2Ob-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To: Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso <ty...@mit.edu>, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	postmas...@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Sa-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-Sa-Exim-Mail-From: ty...@thunk.org
X-Sa-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 31
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com>,
	Al Viro <v...@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazel...@enter.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>,
	Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>,
	debian developer <debian...@gmail.com>, da...@lang.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tar...@netone.net.tr>,
	linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,
	postmas...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:56:29 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <20070618215629.GA2...@thunk.org>
X-Original-References: <or645qfn99....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706161817.36657.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orodjfmjsr....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<200706162306.14516.dhazel...@enter.net> 
<orwsy3l0jv....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070617051451.GD21...@ftp.linux.org.uk> 
<orps3vjf93....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070618154549.GB6...@kroah.com> 
<orabuxcefc....@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
<20070618194813.GA11...@kroah.com>
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:48:13PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web forms after
> > > that?
> > 
> > If you're adamantly favorable to permitting any form of Tivoization
> > whatsoever, don't bother.
> 
> For the record, I completely feel that what Tivo did was both legally
> correct[1], and the correct thing to do for their system, and would
> fight _very_ hard any attempt to change the Linux kernel's license that
> would prevent this usage model.
> 
> So I will not bother anymore.

Linus has spoken, Greg K-H has spoken, many other people spoken ---
and yet Alexandre keeps on speaking, and speaking, and speaking....

It's pretty clear no one is convincing anyone, and that everyone
understands their position, and are happy with it, and so all we're
doing now is wasting bandwidth.

Can we please end this thread?  

Please?

						- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/