Message-Id: <200706170008.17477.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:08:17 -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 23:31:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 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.

And what gives you or the FSF to define what "Free Software" is? What makes 
the definition you are using is the correct one?

But it doesn't matter. You're backpedalling, tossing up a smokescreen because 
you've been caught working under a double-standard.

> 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?

That you were arguing a pitifully bad 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?

Nope. As I've stated before it doesn't matter that you believe it. What 
matters is that there is no single, definable "spirit" of the license. 
The "spirit" is what each person who places their work under the license 
believes it to be.

>
> 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.

But you have done this multiple times. You may not have been trying to, but 
you were.

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

With *YOUR* view of what the spirit is. 

>
> 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.

I'm a firm believer in letting people hang themselves, but this is a bit much. 
The TiVO company didn't do that. They kept the ability to *REPLACE* the 
version on the device that connects to their network to themselves. You have 
access to the source code TiVO uses, complete with their modifications... You 
can modify it in any way you choose *AND* you can distribute the code 
yourself. Hell, you can even *RUN* it for any purpose you want. What you 
can't do is replace the functional code on the device connected to their 
network.

> 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?

But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to connect 
a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know how TiVO 
devices actually connect) but the network being connected to has a single 
owner who can set such terms. 

I'll repeat, in full, my earlier examples of this:
The first:
I buy a cable modem. Until the second I connect the cable-line to it so I can 
get a connection to the internet I can configure it in whatever manner I 
please. The second the line is connected, even though I *OWN* the hardware, I 
lose all control over its configuration.

The second:
I buy a DSL modem. Until I want to actually connect to the internet it can 
have whatever settings I want it to have. The second I want to connect to the 
internet it has to be configured the way that the ISP wants.
 
> > 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.

And if the license doesn't explicitly state something as being a violation of 
its terms then it doesn't matter.

> > 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.

I agree with you. If I buy the hardware I should have control over it - 
period. However, it is complying with the license.

> It might as well stop distributing the software.

I actually disagree with you. My feeling is that any exposure to open-source 
is a good thing.

> > 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.

But that freedom isn't guaranteed in the license. It also isn't very well 
stated. By the logic of that statement, I should be able to adapt the Linux 
Kernel to be a clone of "bc". (Well, I can, but that isn't the point)

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