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: <200706150644.12099.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:44:11 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	David Greaves <david@...eaves.com>
Cc:	Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>,
	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 06:18:59 David Greaves wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Surely it's more:
>    bad == go away and don't use future improvements to our software anymore
> please. ??

I agree. I stated it in the terms I did because Alexandre originally 
brought "ethics and morality" into the discussion. Not that my word choice is 
wrong at all - violating a copyright license is, after all, illegal.

> *If* you think it's bad (Linus doesn't as far as the kernel goes) then
> isn't it reasonable to exclude 'bad for the community' from the community?

I agree that it is "bad for the community". The impression I've gotten from 
reading the GPLv3, reading transcripts of interviews with RMS, reading 
transcripts of interview with Eben Moglen *and* from the FSFLA members 
participating in this discussion the reason for the anti-tivoization language 
in GPLv3 isn't "its bad for the community" but "we find it ethically and 
morally wrong". That being the reason, what they are saying with the language 
in the GPLv3 is "this is bad/evil and things that are bad/evil should be 
illegal".

> This isn't retroactive - they can continue to use any V2 software they had,
> they wouldn't be able to use V3 developments.
>
> That seems to me to be a very, very reasonable thing to do (and very much
> *not* bad == illegal IMHO)

:) Same here

> David
>
> PS well, I was just seeing if anyone had fixed my libata/md bug yet but
> this seemed more interesting.

It is. Consumed a solid six-hour stretch of my day (5PM EDT to 11PM EDT, June 
14, 2007) (FYI: EDT is UTC - 4)

> PPS and Tejun has, I'm off...

Good for you!

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/