linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:27:59 +0200
From:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

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

There is no boundary between hard- and software in the sense of that 
hardware is something fundamentally different. Hardware is just another way 
to implement programs, and it uses other languages (but SystemC even looks 
quite close to C). If there is a boundary, it's way below the distinction 
between a Tivo and a PC, because these two basically consist of a 
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 
goes, but we have the moral power to define *how* users can change the 
software when they own the hardware (the physical representation).

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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped