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 02:07:25 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, 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>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> 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.

Ok so far.

> 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.

I'd say this is unfair, but if it can happen, then maybe the small
company could have been more careful about the regulations.  There are
various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing
restrictions of modification on any software in the device, all the
way from hardware-constrained output power to hardware-verified
authorized configuration parameters.

> Growing the base of installed GPL covered software,

When this doesn't bring freedom to people, when people can't actually
enjoy the freedoms that the software is supposed to provide, I don't
see why this would be a good thing.  What's the merit in being able to
claim "vendor X chose my Free Software and locked it down such that
users don't get the freedoms I meant for them, and I'm happy about it?"

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