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 16:24:19 -0400
From:	"Dave Neuer" <mr.fred.smoothie@...ox.com>
To:	"Lennart Sorensen" <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc:	"Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"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

On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
> changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
> the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled.

Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
-- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs,
outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have
the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even
available in batches that small.

This argument seems totally disingenuous to me. The GPLv<3 was written
in a time when the majority of sotware to which the license was
applied was written for general purpose computers. The "user" was the
owner of the computer, and Freedom 0 was about letting that user RUN
modified copies of the software.

Things have changed a lot; we're surrounded by embedded computers, and
Freedom 0 seems to strongly imply I should have the right to run
modified versions of the Free Software I own on the hardware I OWN. Or
is the future of Open Source that you'll be able to hack on free
software as long as you work for Intel, Red Hat, TiVO, Google or OSDL?
Or own many-thousand-$$ fab printer?

Look, I totally respect Linus' and others' position that the license
is an inappropriate way to enforce what they feel are hardware design
decisions, but can we dispense w/ the silly argument that the intent
of the GPL is fullfilled as long as the user is allowed to modify the
software where modify means "imagine a world where they'd be able to
run" it?

Dave
-
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/