Message-Id: <200706150825.15491.mgd@technosis.de>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:24:37 +0200
From:	Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	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

> Because GPLv2 doesn't enforce limitations on the hardware a GPL'd work can be 
> put on. It doesn't make artificial distinctions between "Commercial", 
> "Industrial" and "User". What it does is *ATTEMPT* to ensure that nobody 
> receiving a copy of a GPL'd work has the same rights as any other person that 
> gets a copy. GPLv3 gives people *additional* rights beyond those.

IMO this statement expressedly exposes the different viewpoints as used
in various factions in this discussion.

Without adopting all the details I think I can agree to the above stmt.
However I don't agree with the implied msg as I perceive it.

In the following I'll try to explain what I mean by the above.

I don't know whether what TiVo did actually was allowed by the legal
phrases of the GPLv2. I can image it was legally valid but I don't know.
But then I'm convinced it was one of the things the inventors of the
GPL wanted to make illegal by it -- they may have failed to do so when
wording the legal part.

I like to remind you of the story with the broken closed source printer
driver RMS tried to fix at MIT (if I recall correctly) and the frustration
that he couldn't do so that finally made him start the FSF.

No customer can fix his TiVo box without the cooperation of the HW
vendor. If they refuse there is nothing that can be done. For me this
is very much like printer story above.

Assuming you (the reader) agree so far:
I find it obvious that the GPL was meant to prevent such to be possible.
This is what I mean by the "the spirit of the GPL".

Living in germany I'm also used to the courts valueing the intention over
the exact wording of a contract (a licence after all is a contract). So
I _think_ in germany TiVo would have lost a lawsuit if they had tried it.


Now for a different PoV:
Do I think Tivoisation is bad for the community ?
Of course I think it is but your mileage may vary.

Anyway, if one considers Tivoisation acceptable then there is no reason
to stop using GPLv2.

If one wishes to prevent it there are two related questions:
- does GPLv2 prevent it ?
- if GPLv2 does not prevent it then how can we change it to achieve that ?

To me it seems as if the FSF tends to answer the first question with 'no'
and consequently answers the second question with 'GPLv3'.

Whether or not the GPLv3 is truely an acceptable answer to prevent
Tivoisation is a completely different issue that I can't really judge.

Last not least:
Nothing of the above has to do with ethics, moral or any such cathegories.
This is by intention.

Thank you for reading thus far -- I hope I made myself clear.

Best wishes,
Michael
-- 
 Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar
 Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg
 Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
 Michael Gerdau       email: mgd@...hnosis.de
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists