[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b69d1470706152247l3a6fbd70i4c0a94b3c82a455c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:47:20 -0500
From: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
To: "Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva@...hat.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 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 think I "left it out". The point is that if the manufacturer
is unwilling to give the right to modify, no change in the language is
going to cause the user to have that right.
scott
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists