Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:49:56 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	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 Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.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@...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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists