linux-kernel - Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

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]

Message-ID: <m3y7s581nk.fsf@defiant.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:01:19 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@...oste.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> writes:

> But the whole point was to just show how silly the whole "upgradable" vs 
> "not upgradable" discussion is. We're literally talking about something 
> where apparently it matters to the GPLv3 whether a pin on a chip is 
> connected to software or hardware (or not at all). Is that sane?

I admit I haven't read the last GPLv3 draft, but for me the "freedom"
(=> benefit) is not the ability to alter software in some specific
existing device, but rather to take the software, perhaps modify it
and use in _my_ hardware device.

I can't use a modified kernel with their TIVO platform? No problem,
Chinese can make a better one, or maybe some mini ITX board from
VIA would do.


Though I think "upgrading" engine settings of my car could be nice,
never had time to look at it :-)
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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/