| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:21:53 +0200
From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@...oste.net>
To: davids@...master.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Le mardi 19 juin 2007 à 10:50 -0700, David Schwartz a écrit :
> > > The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software
> > > onto hardware
> > > where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no,
> > > you may not
> > > modify the software running on this hardware".
>
> > Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually
> > supported your opinion. It's still an obvious alien insert.
>
> It's simply shorter than saying "owners of the right or ability to decide
> what software runs on that hardware".
Right is not the same thing as ability. You have a technical ability
which has been converted in a "right" which in turn is used as argument
to reject GPLv3.
But did the original conversion happened with the approval of everyone
having rights to the result? I think not.
All the "GPLv2 didn't think of DRM therefore DRM is GPLv2-protected"
arguments make me sick. If tomorrow Ford starts mass+producing flying
saucers will they be exempt from traffic regulations because current
traffic regulations only consider cars? I think not. Yet the same
argument is the core of most GPL v3 objections we've seen in this
thread.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists