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: <200706150136.25186.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:36:24 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	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 Thursday 14 June 2007 23:54:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
> >>
> >> I produce egg yolk.  I give it to you under terms that say "if you
> >> pass this on, you must do so in such a way that doesn't stop anyone
> >> from eating it"
> >>
> >> You produce egg shells.  You carefully construct your shell around the
> >> egg yolk and some white you got from a liberal third party.
> >>
> >> Then you sell the egg shells, with white and yolk inside, under
> >> contracts that specify "the shell must be kept intact, it can't be
> >> broken or otherwise perforated".
> >>
> >> Are you or are you not disrespecting the terms that apply to the yolk?
> >
> > Bad analogy.
>
> It's just a very simple case in which an enclosure is being used to
> disrespect the terms of something enclosed in it.
>
> It's meant to show that the argument that "it's a software license, it
> can't affect the hardware" is nonsense.
>
> It's not meant to show whether TiVO is right or wrong.  This would
> depend on agreement that the GPL requirements are similar to the
> requirements of the egg yolk manufacturer.
>
> >> > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the
> >> > software", on that piece of hardware it bought which had free
> >> > software on it, correct?
> >>
> >> Yes.  This means the hardware distributor who put the software in
> >> there must not place roadblocks that impede the user to get where she
> >> wants with the software, not that the vendor must offer the user a
> >> sport car to take her there.
> >
> > Okay. That means that if I ship Linux on a ROM chip I have to
> > somehow make it so that the person purchasing the chip can modify
> > the copy of Linux installed on the chip *if* I want to follow both
> > the spirit and the letter of the GPLv2.
>
> I thought we'd already cleared up the issue about ROMs, and why
> they're different.  Do I have to quote it again?  Must I allude to
> "passing on the rights" every time I mention "imposing further
> restrictions"? :-(

I wasn't referring to anything that had already been "cleared up". I was 
applying the logic of the statement of yours I quoted. The "cleared up" 
things all were in reference to the GPLv3 - my example was in reference to 
the "spirit" of the GPLv2 that you were stating. By simple extension of the 
logic you provided I came to the conclusion stated above.

The fact that you've claimed I'm wrong shows how flawed your logic is.

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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/