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: <orhcpa88b0.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:45:07 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david\@lang.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 Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

>>> *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to
>>> everyone - just to those that get the binaries.

>> Exactly.  Not even to the upstream distributor.  That's where Linus'
>> theory of tit-for-tat falls apart.

> Nope.

> case 1:  Upstream provides source, tivo modifies and distributes it
> (to their customers).

> case 2: tivo provides source, end user modifies and distributes it
> (possibly to their customers, maybe to friends, possibly even to
> upstream).

> See?  Tit for tat.

case 2': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
the hardware won't let him and gives up

Where's the payback, or the payforward?

And then, tit-for-tat is about equivalent retaliation, an eye for an
eye.  Where's the retaliation here?

If GPLv2 were tit-for-tat, if someone invents artifices to prevent the
user from making the changes the user wants on the software, wouldn't
it be "equivalent retaliation" to prevent the perpetrator from making
the changes it wants on the software?

-- 
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/