linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

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:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:46:52 +0200
From:	Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Bongani Hlope <bhlope@...b.co.za>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

> > > able to run you modifications on the same hardware?
>                                          ^^^^
> > Come on! The whole idea of software is to have it run on some HW.
>                                                            ^^^^
> > Why would I want to change it in the first place if I can't run it ?
> 
> See the difference?

Forgive my poor mastery of the english language and me letting slip
this inconsistency.

The first sentence you cited was a general remark IMO valid outside
of this context and possibly ill placed as it was.

The second sentence pertains the key msg I was trying to deliver and
apparently I did a poor job in phrasing it so let me redo it:
Why would I want to change the SW targetted for some HW if I can't run
the changed version on said HW ?

[note that for the TiVo case I possibly would not own or be able to own
similar HW being able to run my modified SW; so even some HW would not
be triggered either]                                 ^^^^

Remember I'm discussing my understanding of the spirit of the GPL,
not whether the legal part actually does give me that right enforceable
in court.

Here is another stmt which is valid outside of this context AFAIAC:
If the GPLv2 does not legally give me the right that I think its spirit
gives me then the legal phrases should be changed to achieve that.

Whether or not others share my view of what the spirit of the GPL
implies is completely theirs to decide and if they differ they likely
won't agree on my previous stmt either. Fine with me.

And this leads to another observation:
IMO this thread is partly fueled by a fundamental mixing of PoVs.
Some argue based on their perceived view of the spirit of the GPL
and some based on the actual legal phrases in GPLv2 and GPLv3 and
whether or how they reflect the perceived spirit.

Best wishes,
Michael
-- 
 Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar
 Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg
 Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
 Michael Gerdau       email: mgd@...hnosis.de
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)