linux-kernel - Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

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:	Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:16:42 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <oliva@....ic.unicamp.br>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	"Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

On Jun 30, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> wrote:

>> But software is different.  So different
>> that it's governed by a separate law in Brazil, which could be
>> qualified as a subclass of copyright law.  And this law states that
>> running programs requires permission from the copyright holder.

> So do I have to buy a program and then negotiate the right to run it
> separately? That seems very crazy.

If you buy the program, then you become the copyright holder.

I assume you meant buying a license.  In this case, especially in the
case of off-the-shelf non-Free Software, the license likely grants you
permission to run the program, otherwise why would you pay for the
license anyway?

>> If you find that odd, you may have an idea of how ludicrous patents on
>> software, business methods et al are.  At least copyright regulation
>> of execution saves us from a few abusive EULAs, created with the
>> purpose of, let's see, regulating execution.

> Quite the reverse. If execution is a copyright right, then I might need to
> agree to a license or conract to get it. If execution is not a copyright
> right, then I am safe from such craziness.

Whoever gave you the copy you lawfully obtained is already subject to
and/or able to offer a copyright license anyway.  If the copyright
holder wants to restrict your ability to run the software, whether
copyright covers this case or not is absolutely irrelevant.

And evidently some businesses have interests in restricting your
ability to run software, not only to be able to sell you multiple
licenses of non-Free Software, but also to turn Free Software into
non-Free Software.

> I am probably one of the stronger supporters of intellectual
> property rights

How do you reason about binary-only software fulfilling the goal of
copyright?  How does it deliver its part of the copyright deal with
society if, even after it goes public domain, still nobody can create
derived works from it because the source code remains unavailable?
http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1

-- 
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/