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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706191413040.26701@asgard.lang.hm>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	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 Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>
> Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to
> match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction)
>
>
> Vendor doesn't care about tivoizing, their business works the same
> either way.
>
> Vendor's employees will contribute the same, one way or another, so
> their contributions are out of the equation.

no, this is what you are missing.

with tivoizing, the vendors employees are working on linux and 
contributing

without tivoizing and with GPLv3 license involved the vendors employees 
are working on a propriatary OS and are contributing nothing back

> Users get source code in either case, and they can modify it and share
> it.  They're in no way stopped from becoming part of the community.

not if the GPLv3 achieves it's objectives of forcing the vendor to stop 
useing opensource software.

>
> Given these conditions:
>
> In a tivoized device, users will be unable to scratch their itches.
> This doesn't stop them from contributing to the project, but they may
> lack self-interest motivation to contribute, because they won't be
> able to use their modifications in the device they own.
>
> In a non-tivoized device, users can scratch their itches.  They can
> contribute just as much as they would in a tivoized device, but since
> they can use the changes they make to make their own devices work
> better for them, this works as a motivator for them to make changes,
> and perhaps to contribute them.  Therefore, they will tend to
> contribute more.
>
>
> Can you point out any flaw in this reasoning, or can we admit it as
> true?

in a tivoized device, users have access to the source code and can 
understand how things work, incoporate improvements into other projects, 
etc.

In addition, users who bypass the lockdown restrictions can modify the 
software on that device.

in a non-tivoized device users have a black-box and have to reverse 
engineer everything becouse the vendor releases no source at all.

David Lang
-
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/