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: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706142034240.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.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 Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
> the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up

So you're blaming Tivo for the fact that your end user was a lazy bum and 
wanted to take advantage of somebody elses hard work without permission?

Quite frankly, I know who the bad guy in that scenario is, and it ain't 
Tivo. It's your lazy bum, that thought he would just take what Tivo did, 
sign the contract, and then not follow it. And just because the box 
_contained_ some piece of free software, that lazy bum suddenly has all 
those rights? Never mind all the *other* effort that went into bringing 
that box to market?

You do realize that Tivo makes all their money on the service, don't you? 
The actual hardware they basically give away at cost, exactly to get the 
service contracts. Not exactly a very unusual strategy in the high-tech 
world, is it?

You know what? I respect the pro-FSF opinions less and less, the more you 
guys argue for it. Michael Poole seems to argue that things like fair use 
shouldn't exist, and even the cryptographic _signatures_ of the programs 
should be under total control of the copyright owner.

And you seem to argue that it's perfectly fine to ignore the people who 
design hardware and the services around them, and once you have that piece 
of hardware in your grubby hands you can do anythign you want to it, and 
_their_ rights and the contracts you signed don't matter at all.

Guys, you should be ashamed of calling yourself "free software" people. 

You sound more like the RIAA/MPAA ("we own all the rights! We _own_ your 
sorry asses for even listening to our music") and a bunch of whiners that 
think that just because you have touched a piece of hardware you 
automatically can do anythign you want to it, and nobody elses rights 
matter in the least!

Guys, in fighting for "your rights", you should look a bit at *other* 
peoples rights too. Including the rights of hw manufacturers, and the 
service providers. Because this is all an eco-system, where in order to 
actually succeed, you need to make _everybody_ succeed.

			Linus
-
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/