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]

Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:50:43 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
Cc:	"Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> wrote:

>> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>> 
>> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
>> > software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
>> > tamperproof to random end consumers).
>> 
>> But this is not tivoization.

>> Tivoization is a manufacturer using technical measures to prevent the
>> user from tampering (*) with the device, *while* keeping the ability
>> to tamper with it changes itself.

> You're splitting those hairs might finely.

And I was wrong.  Please see the "mea culpa on the meaning of
tivoization" thread.

> So when you ask whether there's any law that "requirse tivoization",
> you won't accept a law that creates a situation where the only
> practical solution is tivoization?

I guess it amounts to what you mean by "*only* practical solution".

"I can't fit the corresponding sources in this CD, so you won't get
them." is no excuse to disrespect users' freedoms, why should this be
different?

>> Taking it further, do you know whether any such law requires
>> *worldwide* tivoization, as in, applying the restrictions in the law
>> even outside its own jurisdiction?

> A law that requires certaint things be tamper-proof, where engineering
> realities requires that they be controlled by software and the software be
> upgradable (for security reasons and for support of future protocol
> revisions) isn't good enough for you?

"engineering realities" is the weak point of your argument, see above.
Is ROM still software?  Is replaceable ROM still software?

-- 
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/