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: <4672D648.7020700@dgreaves.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:11:20 +0100
From:	David Greaves <david@...eaves.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	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

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Greaves wrote:
>> Surely it's more:
>>   bad == go away and don't use future improvements to our software anymore
>> please.
>> ??
> 
> Well, with the understanding that I don't think that what Tivo did was bad 
> in the first place, let me tackle that question *anyway*.
> 
> The answer is: Not necessarily.
I do agree with what you say here. Maybe a summary:
Babies, bathwater...
When you have a hammer (license) everything looks like a nail...

> See? You don't actually have to like Tivo to see downsides to trying to 
> stop them. Because these kinds of things have consequences *outside* of 
> just stopping Tivo.

My concern is around embedded type systems and maybe even the 'trusted' 
frameworks etc.

I _think_ I can see a completely opensource system that the end user cannot 
modify _in any way_. Which kinda defeats the point (to me) of opensource.

This 5 minute design undoubtedly has flaws but it shows a direction:
A basically standard 'De11' PC with some flash.
A Tivoised boot system so only signed kernels boot.
A modified kernel that only runs (FOSS) executables whose signed hash lives in 
the flash.

Do we (you) _want_ to prevent this?

Do we trust in 'the market' to prevent this?

Do we use license tools?

David

-
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/