| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <451D2762.8000103@seclark.us> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:02:10 -0400 From: Stephen Clark <Stephen.Clark@...lark.us> To: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no> CC: tglx@...utronix.de, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Michiel de Boer <x@...elhomicide.demon.nl>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement Helge Hafting wrote: >Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > >>On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 12:31 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: >> >> >> >>>The GPLv3 rewords it in an attempt to be clearer but also I think rather >>>more over-reaching. It's not clear what for example happens with a >>>rented device containing GPL software but with DRM on the hardware. >>>Thats quite different to owned hardware. GPLv2 leaves it open for the >>>courts to make a sensible decision per case, GPLv3 tries to define it in >>>advance and its very very hard to define correctly. >>> >>> >>> >>Also the prevention of running modified versions is not only caused by >>economic interests and business models. There are also scenarios where >>it is simply necessary: >> >>- The liability for damages, where the manufacturer of a device might >>be responsible in case of damage when he abandoned the prevention. This >>applies to medical devices as well as to lasers, machine tools and many >>more. Device manufacturers can not necessarily escape such liabilities >>as it might be considered grossly negligent to hand out the prevention >>key, even if the user signed an exemption from liability. >> >> >> >This seems silly to me. Sure, lasers and medical equipment is >dangerous if used wrong. When such equipment is >controlled by software, then changing that software brings >huge responsibility. But it shouldn't be made impossible. > >They can provide the key, with the warning that _using_ it >means you are on your own and take all responsibility. > >I can take the covers off a cd player and let the laser >shine into the room. Nothing prevents me from doing >that, it isn't welded shut or anything. And it might >be useful if I ever need a laser beam. Of course I am >then responsible if I take someone's eye out. CD players >have warning labels about this. And the same can be done >for the keys to dangerous software. > > >>- Regulations to prevent unauthorized access to radio frequencies, which >>is what concerns e.g. cellphone manufacturers. >> >> >> >Unauthorized use is illegal and easy enough to track down. >No special protection is needed. And it cannot be enforced >by making the phones har to modify - any radio amateur knows >how to build from scratch a transmitter to jam the GSM bands >if he should be inclined to do so. Anyone can look this up in >books too. > >Helge Hafting >- >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/ > > > Amen! -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin) "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." (Thomas Jefferson) - 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