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: <161717d50706200958o53ae986fv635e18b9b6a17e85@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:58:36 -0400
From:	"Dave Neuer" <mr.fred.smoothie@...ox.com>
To:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Helge Hafting" <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>,
	"Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	"Daniel Hazelton" <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"Lennart Sorensen" <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	"Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"debian developer" <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
	"Tarkan Erimer" <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> But they do have the right to make their own choices, and try their own
> strategies. And people shouldn't complain about that. If somebody doesn't
> like the Tivo box, and the Tivo service requirements, just don't *buy* the
> damn thing, and don't sign up for the service.

>
> And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then
> tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron.

One might say the same thing about someone who claims not to have a
moral right to force certain choices on others in some circumstances
(e.g. when those others have used copyrighted work in a product and
ought to understand that for some not insignificant portion of the
copyright holders, the terms implicitly included preserving certain
"freedoms" for downstream recipients) while reserving a very similar
moral right with others (e.g. potential murderers, theives,
tresspassers, distributors of proprietary derived works).

As I pointed out in a previous message in the thread, that some people
want the copyright holders -- who have economic power over the
hardware vendors who use Linux in their products -- to force a
desireable outcome for those without that power (i.e. the small number
of people who buy TiVOs or Linksys routers who actually care about
source availability and who get told "don't buy it" as if that will
change anything) is understandable.

I think that there's a legitimate concern about what types of
constraints it's valid for a copyright holder to try to enforce w/ a
license -- I think it's immoral for an employer to force an employee
to toil at a meaningless, soul-crushing job for the vast majority of
one's single, short existence if they could make it more enjoyable,
but I'd hate to see someone try to enforce that with a license (I'm
happy telling a person in that situation to "just quit" just as you
tell people "just don't buy it"). To call people who draw the line in
a different place than you hypocrites is BS.

Your pragmatic arguments make much more sense than your moralistic ones, IMHO.

Dave
-
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/