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]

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/