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: <orlkeku196.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:38:45 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	"Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rob Landley" <rob@...dley.net>,
	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"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 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com> wrote:

> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places
>> > the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no
>> > particular reason

>> Over *users* interest?  How so?

> Users benefit from the ability to get software updates, from the
> manufacturer, to resolve problems, fix security vulnerabilities, and
> provide updated functionality.

Which they could have the option to do themselves if the manufacturer
didn't prohibit them from doing so.

>> > if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software
>> > modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make
>> > the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom not at all) or to
>> > use software under a different license (which advances freedom not
>> > at all).

>> Right.

>> But if the manufacturer believes that it can legally allow it, and
>> wants to be able to install, software modifications, then it must
>> decide between giving that up and letting the user do it as well.  And
>> this is where the users interests may prevail.

> Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
> the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device
> non-updatable nor forcing the manufacturer to use different software
> benefits anyone.

I agree.  But that's an incomplete picture.

It's the other part of the picture, that you left out twice, that is
the case that is good for the users *and* for the community.

> I don't believe that the existence of this clause will lead to more
> manufacturers making their devices modifiable - there are too many
> other options if they think that non-modifiability is important to
> them.

> [Note that I *do* think it's perfectly appropriate that authors who
> feel that they don't want their work used in such devices should be
> able to license them in line with that belief. I just don't think it
> has any practical value aside from making them feel better.]

They can do that with GPLv3.  And those who don't want to stop this
can then add a special permission.  And then everybody wins.

-- 
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/