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:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:57:59 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
>> 
>> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
>> this would be "mission accomplished".

> This is insane.  You start with a lofty ideal involving "freedom", and
> when you end up with a meaningless technicality (and in technical terms
> a change for the worse) you consider it a victory?

It accomplishes the mission in that everyone is on the same grounds.
Same freedom for everyone.  If the vendor tries to keep a privilege
over the software to itself, denying it to its customers, it's failing
to comply with the spirit of the license.  It's really this simple.
Is this so hard to understand?

The goal is not to push vendors away from GPLed software.  If they
can't permit modification of the software, that's fine, they can still
accomplish this.

What they can't do is deny it to customers while they retain it to
themselves.  This is unfair, this is wrong, and this disrespects
users' freedoms.  Therefore, the GPL should not permit it.

-- 
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/