Message-Id: <200706150520.15086.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:20:14 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>
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

On Friday 15 June 2007 02:24:37 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > 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.

Agreed. And thanks for ignoring the obvious typo.

> 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.

No doubt. However, GPLv2 actually states in clear and concise english that it 
doesn't cover *anything* but the rights to "copy, distribute and modify" 
covered works. It actually states that other rights are beyond the scope of 
the license. That statement, IMHO (and IANAL), obviates any other "intent" 
the "inventor" of the license may have had by making the scope of the license 
clear. 

<snip>

> 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.

I own an XBox 360. If it breaks I can't fix it without the cooperation of MS. 
The fact that a TiVO runs an OS that is licensed under the GPL doesn't change 
the fact that the situation is *exactly* the same. TiVO breaks? Manufacturer 
(or someone certified and licensed for the task by the manu) fixes it. XBox 
breaks? Manufacturer fixes it. My laptop breaks? As long as its under 
warranty, the manufacturer fixes it *FOR* *FREE* - if it's out of warranty, I 
pay for the "service" but they still fix it. QED: The "manufacturer must 
cooperate in or perform the repair" is not some new idea - its actually 
common practice.

> 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.

It might be that you are correct. However, thanks to someone having actually 
identified the exact scope of the GPLv2 *in* the legally active text of the 
license the "intent" shouldn't have much weight or bearing. Look at the first 
sentence of the second paragraph of section 0. "Activities other than 
copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they 
are outside its scope."

>
> 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.

And I happen to agree with you. What I disagree with is taking steps to 
make "bad == illegal". I also have a problem with doing things that force my 
viewpoint on other people.

> 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.

And neither am I. My whole point in arguing over it has been that, despite 
what some people want to believe, it isn't violating the GPLv2 in any way, 
shape or form.

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

Thank you for that.

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

Yes, you have.

DRH

> Best wishes,
> Michael



-- 
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists