Message-Id: <200706162306.14516.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:06:13 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>, 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 21:49:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> >> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions
> >> > on *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction
> >> > on *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
> >>
> >> Technicality.  In order for the software to remain free (which is what
> >> the GPL is all about), the user must not be stopped from adapting the
> >> software to suit his needs and running it for any purpose.  TiVo
> >> places restrictions on it.  It's really this simple.
> >
> > Your arguments are all based on technicalities, so why are you
> > complaining when I do the same?
>
> My arguments are based on the intent behind the license, its spirit.

But each of those arguments is based on a technicality. By your reasoning I 
could kill everybody living in the middle east to stop the wars there and not 
be wrong - after all, you say "But I'm using those technicalities to show the 
letter and spirit of the license" - ie: "The ends justify the means".

> You keep falling back to legal technicalities, that have zero to do
> with the interpretation of the intent.
>
> That's why.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

Do you know how many lawyers make a living because the "spirit" of a law has 
no legal weight?

> > As it stands there is *NOTHING* that singular distinction makes all the
> > difference in the world. What you are arguing - based on your *BELIEF*
> > that such *REPLACEMENT* is a modification.
>
> Maybe modification is not the best word, because it carries a lot of
> legal background from copyright law.
>
> How about adaptation.  From freedom #1, freedom to study the software
> and adapt it to your needs.  Do you see how tivoization imposes an
> artificial restriction to this freedom?

Nothing stopping people from doing that with the GPL'd software running on a 
TiVO. 

> > If you want I'll go dig out the exact place where RMS said that he
> > didn't care about hardware.
>
> This is still true.  This is not about the hardware.  This is about
> the software, and how the user is stopped from adapting it to her own
> needs, while the vendor saves this prerogative to itself.
>
> > That your right to configure a device ends at the point where it
> > connects to a network? Well, unless you want to sacrifice *ALL* the
> > stuff that makes a TiVO actually worth using, you *HAVE* to connect
> > it to their network.
>
> So, if you visit www.fsfla.org, I 0w|\| your computer?
>
> If you join a bit torrent, I can replace the operating system on your
> computer?
>
> Sorry, I don't buy that.  You're leaving something out of this
> picture, and that's probably quite important.

Nope. Because I'm connecting the the *INTERNET*. The internet is not owned by 
any one person or "legal entity" - therefore there is nobody that can demand 
a certain configuration. Note that I also made it a point to mention that it 
only applies to certain classes of networks - in the US there are laws that 
remove the "complete control over configuration" from telecommunications 
companies. But get a cable-modem in the US and your ISP has the right to 
configure it in *ANY* way they choose.

The TiVO service runs as a network - and a non-public one at that. They own 
the network, they control what hardware and with what configurations is 
allowed to connect. Whats more is that they have the right to actively 
control that configuration.

You do realize, Alexandre, that you can't make me look stupid by just cutting 
out a part of a statement I've made and making silly comments about it. If 
you are going to quote something I've said, make sure you quote the *ENTIRE* 
effective part and not just the bit you think will make you look smart. All 
it does is make you look like an ass.

> >> If these are not restrictions on the freedoms that the GPL is designed
> >> to protect to ensure that Free Software remains Free for all its
> >> users, I don't know what is.
> >
> > "Free as in beer" is the phrasing used, I believe.
>
> Huh?  Are you implying that the Free Software foundation wrote this
> meaning "zero cost"?

Nope. I was making sure that you understood your own propaganda. "Free as in 
beer" - if I get a free beer I'm getting the beer, not the glass. If you 
aren't intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying: I get the software 
and *ALL* rights to it that everyone *BUT* the licensor has under the GPL. 
What you are doing is saying "It is what is said, but not what is meant."

The funniest part of it is that you are claiming that the "spirit" of the GPL 
is to force each licensee to give up *MORE* rights than they are asked to. In 
other words... TiVO is a licensee of the kernel - they received certain 
rights through the GPL that they are required to pass along to anyone they 
give a copy to. Those rights are passed on. What they don't do is allow a 
copy of the "covered work" to run on the hardware - copies that might do 
things like allow people to break the copyright on content that the box can 
create copies of.

The thing is, I already know your answer. It's in the mail that this is a 
reply to. The "spirit of the law" is something everyone wishes people would 
follow. But each person has their own interpretation of what the "Spirit" is 
and there is no real way to know what the "spirit" of a law is. Because 
language is such a slippery beast even the writings of the people that wrote 
the law can't define what the "spirit" of a law is. I've repeated myself to 
many times about the unreliability of human testimony on the topic. So what 
is being done by you and everyone else that is part of the FSF is doing is 
saying "Our view of the 'Spirit' of the license is the only correct one. 
Everyone else is wrong."

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. The FSF is also entitled to it's 
opinion. But as has been shown, that opinion may not be correct. And it is a 
simple to prove fact that a large number of people hold a different opinion. 

> > If you have such a respect for peoples freedoms - and I don't doubt
> > that you actually believe you do - then why are you stripping
> > freedoms from people?
>
> Because they're disrespecting others' freedoms.  Freedoms aren't
> absolute.  One's freedom ends where another's freedom starts.
> Tivoization exceeds the hardware manufacturer's freedoms and
> disrespects users' freedoms and disrespect some author's ethical
> intent.

By this logic I could release software under a license that says "if you want 
to use this in a commercial product you have to send any person who buys the 
product a copy of the complete technical specifications - including any 
cryptographic keys - on request." And claim that its protecting the rights of 
the end-user in regards to my software. - Oh, wait, the FSF beat me to it 
with the GPL3!

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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists