Message-ID: <orwsy3l0jv.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:31:00 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
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 Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.

They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
four freedoms that the GPL was designed to respect and defend.

Each version of the GPL may miss the mark.  But this doesn't mean
that's not their spirit.

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

Yes.  What's your point?

All I'm trying to show is that the tivoization provision in GPLv3 is
not a departure from the spirit of the GPL.

Is this so hard to understand?


I'm not trying to say why Linus and others chose the GPLv2.

I'm not trying to determine what their motivations were.

I'm not trying to force them to change to GPLv3.

I'm not trying to convince them that tivozation is a bad thing.

I'm only trying to show that anti-tivozation is in line with the
spirit of the GPL.


tivoization, which means to restrict a user's ability to adapt the
software to their own needs and run it for any purpose, while the
hardware manufacturer keeps this to itself, is against the spirit of
the GPL.

Not whatever reasons the Linux developers had to release their code
under GPLv2.  But the spirit that the authors of the GPL tried to
encode in it.

Is this so difficult to accept?

>> > 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?

> Nope. Because I'm connecting the the *INTERNET*.

Is the connection with the TiVo network not through some other
carrier too?

> 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.

As long as this doesn't violate any other laws or agreements they've
entered, that is.  And this includes license agreements.

> 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.

Didn't mean to, sorry if it seemed that way.  I still don't quite
understand the distinction you're trying to make.

> 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.

No, the GPL doesn't force anything.  It can't.  All it does is to
demand respect for others' freedoms in case one decides to modify or
distribute the software.  It's only if you do modify or distribute the
software that you must respect others' freedoms.  And TiVo does
distribute the software.  But it doesn't respect the freedoms.

It might as well stop distributing the software.

> What they don't do is allow a 
> copy of the "covered work" to run on the hardware

It's not just that.  They actively stop you from being able to do so.
They do this so as to prevent you from changing the behavior of the
program that runs on that box.  They disrespect the freedoms to adapt
the program and to run it for any purpose.

> 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, guess what, you *can* do that.  And it's up to the hardware
manufacturer to decide whether they want to use distribute your
software along with the hardware or not.

Whether this would qualify as a Free Software license, and whether it
would be in the spirit of the GPL, is a separate issue.

-- 
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists