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]

Message-ID: <20070614122546.GB22078@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:25:46 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral 
> > boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF 
> > seems to
> 
> Assuming a democratic state then the laws of the land ought to reflect 
> the 'general will' (if you believe Rousseau anyway). They should thus 
> define the boundary ['derivative work' generally ] according to the 
> general good and with the consent of the people.

uhm, so if the MPAA and the RIAA pays for another nice piece of 
legislation that extends the power of copyright owners, do you find it 
morally justified to use those powers, as long as it's argued to be in 
favor of some long-term goal that you judge to be moral, even if it 
results in some "temporary injustice"?

i think that could be the main difference in thinking. I argue that the 
only way to be moral is to be moral _now_, not "later, once this very 
important fight for the common good is over". I think the moral approach 
to this is to say _no_ to attempts to extend the license to beyond the 
"moral scope" of the software we wrote - regardless of what new powers 
are legislated into the hands of copyright owners. It's naturally hard 
to do, because giving up power is always hard to do.

In other words: we need to apply our concepts of freedom and fairness 
not only to the end result, but to the means and methods of achieving 
those end results as well. The end goals are often forgotten, it's the 
process that matters to the end result.

Or in yet another set of words: this concept of morality also happens to 
be expressed fairly accurately in the thousands of years of 'quid pro 
quo' concept. (shared amongst many, many cultures on this planet, shared 
amongst far more cultures than the western 'freedom' concept.) (which 
concept of quid-pro-quo fairness is likely coded into our brains and 
into our thinking genetically - because it's a simple and very efficient 
group survival method.)

	Ingo
-
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/