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]

Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:42:05 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david\@lang.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 Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:27:27 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
>> > <somewhat sarcastic>
>> > And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or
>> > other GPL'd software installed and place limits such that only
>> > people that have purchased that hardware have access to the
>> > "modified" source running on the device are following the letter,
>> > and the spirit, of the GPL.
>> 
>> WAIT, WAIT, THAT'S... :-)
>> 
>> > Before you start yelling I'm wrong, think about it this way: they
>> > make the source available to the people that they've given binary
>> > versions to, and there is nothing stopping one of those people from
>> > making the source available to the rest of the world.
>> 
>> The *only* in your sentence betrayed you.
>> 
>> If they place the limits such that nobody else can access the sources,
>> they're in violation of the license.

> Nope. There is *NO* requirement *ANYWHERE* in the GPL, no matter the version, 
> that says you have to *DISTRIBUTE* the source to *ANYONE* except those that 
> you have given a binary to. Go read the licenses.

I agree.  I even said so.

But the *only* gave me the impression that you were talking about
magic, or any other sufficiently advanced technology ;-), that would
enable the recipients to get the source code, but not usefully pass it
on.

> That is *EXACTLY* what a number of companies have done - Acer (yes,
> the laptop company) has done that. They sell laptops running Linux,
> but unless you have purchased one of them you can't download the
> sources (or even replacement binaries) for the version of linux they
> put on their machines. (From Acer, that is)

That's the sort of stuff that breaks the tit-for-tat premise.  GPL
indeed is not concerned about tit-for-tat.  It's concerned about
respect for the freedoms.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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/