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: <200706161826.03408.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:26:03 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tim Post <tim.post@...kinetics.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	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 Saturday 16 June 2007 18:01:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> >> > In the case of renting a machine you can try to legislate new laws all
> >> > you want. It doesn't make a difference. There are certain rights you
> >> > don't get when renting something that you do when you own it.
> >>
> >> You mean renting the computer with the software in it is not
> >> distribution of the software?
> >
> > It is. But you don't have the same rights to a rented machine as you
> > do to one you have purchased.
>
> That's true.  But since it's distribution, the licensing terms of the
> software in there must be followed, or the software must be removed.
> It's really this simple.
>
> It's not about the hardware.  It's about the software and what you
> must not prevent others from doing with it.
>
> > And yes, they can even have terms in it that violate the GPL. Not
> > that a "renters contract" ("rental agreement" or whatever they call
> > them in your jurisdiction) that has those terms can *legally*
> > violate the GPL - but it doesn't stop them from existing.
>
> By "legally violate the GPL", do you mean lawfully escape the terms of
> the GPL, or that infringe the copyrights of the authors for violate
> its legal terms?  I hope it's the latter.

Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant that they can violate the GPL, because 
they have the right to say "You can't modify the software on the device you 
are renting". I mis-stated it because I didn't make it clear that, even 
though that is their legal right, they would still be in violation of the 
GPL.

The reason that it is different from the TiVO case is that they have not 
stopped you from doing any modification - what they have prevented is the use 
of those modifications on the hardware they designed. The response from the 
FSF and people like you (Alexandre) is childish - at best. "They have one of 
our toys in their house but we can't play with it. WAAAAH!"

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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/