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 16:13:31 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	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

On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
>> hardware.  I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
>> Software in it.

> No you're not...you're talking about being able to hack the software
> *and load it back onto the original hardware*.

Yes.  You wouldn't impose restrictions on modifying the software like
that, now would you?  Even though the GPL says you can't impose
further restrictions on modification and distribution.

>> It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use
>> the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that
>> they're entitled to have.

> The software license controls the software.  If the hardware has
> restrictions on it that limit what software it will run, then that is
> unrelated to the software license.

As in, the license controls the software.  If a patent creates
restrictions that limit what you can do with the software, then that
is unrelated to the software license.

As in, the license controls the software.  If a discriminatory
contract limits what you can do with the software, then that is
unrelated to the software license.

As in, the license controls the software.  If I send you the source
code, but it happens to be protected by a key that only the hardware
can decode, and it won't decode for you, then that is unrelated to the
software license.

Is that so, really?

> There is nothing stopping you from taking the code for the tivo,
> modifying it, distributing it, or even running it on other hardware.

True.  But TiVO is still imposing further restrictions on how I can
modify the software stored in their device, while reserving that
ability to itself.  This is wrong.  This is not "in kind".  This is
not "tit-for-tat".  Tit-for-tat is: if they can, then I can too, and
if I can't, then they can't either.

> Suppose I had some machine that will only run microsoft-signed
> binaries. Would it be at all related to any software license that this
> machine won't let me run linux?

That would be an unfortunate machine to have, but if Linux or some
other GPLed software was not shipped in it, then I don't see how this
is relevant to this discussion.  It's not about the hardware, it's
about the software in it, and about passing on the freedoms related
with it.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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/