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: <4671F127.40000@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:53:43 -0400
From:	Florin Malita <fmalita@...il.com>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
CC:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, 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>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <fmalita@...il.com> wrote:
>   
>> No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative
>> work. Modification does.
>>     
>
> Thanks.  Good point.  This convinces me that this doesn't work as a
> legal argument under copyright.
>
> I still stand by my understanding that this restriction violates the
> spirit of the license.
>   

But since this elusive "spirit" is subject to everybody's interpretation 
of the preamble, you must surely admit that it remains just a matter of 
opinion ;)

>> It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the
>> right to install new versions on the device
>>     
>
> Actually, no.  They withhold the right to run versions that they don't
> authorize themselves.
>   

On that particular piece of hw, yes. But who's granted you the right to 
*run* your modified copy *there* in the first place? GPLv2 explicitly 
steers clear of anything "other than copying, distribution and 
modification".

> Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an
> issue.  It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control
> that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobody had thought of
> technical measures to stop people from running modified copies of
> software.  At least nobody involved in GPLv2, AFAIK.
>   
> The landscape has changed, and GPLv3 is meant to defend this freedom
> that was taken for granted.
>   

Then you agree that GPLv2 does not protect your freedom (taken for 
granted) to run a modified copy on any particular device, or am I 
misreading?

>>> What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your
>>> editor?
>>>       
>
>   
>> Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact
>> copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;)
>>     
>
> Sorry, I really don't follow.  Both versions of the kernel binary also
> started from a common source ancestor.  Were you trying to make a
> distinction on these grounds?
>   

Exactly: they have a common ancestor, they are both derived from it. But 
there's no ancestry relationship *between* them (unlike your edited file 
example) so you cannot argue that one is a modification of the other. 
Hence, Tivo is not really *modifying* the copies it distributes with the 
device - they're *installing* brand new copies instead. They also choose 
not to offer everybody the same privilege :-|

Does this go against the intent of the GPLv2 authors? Probably. Does it 
go against the letter of GPLv2? Apparently not. Does it go against 
your/some people's interpretation of the GPL "spirit"? Obviously. Does 
it go against everybody's interpretation? Obviously not.

---
fm
-
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/