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: <20070616181902.GB21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:19:02 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>,
	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 Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:57:59PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 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.

How the hell does that improve the situation for users?  Alexandre,
please realize that you are preaching to non-believers.  I realize
that you have accepted the FSF credo, but if you want that conversation
to go anywhere you have to separate the things you believe in from
the things you can rationally explain.  Apologetics of your variety is 
not going to cut it.  _Can_ you separate the things relying on your
beliefs from the things that can stand on their own?  If you can't
do that, please stop wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.  It's
a secular maillist; what any of us might happen to believe in is personal
and frankly, none of your damn business.
-
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/