linux-kernel - Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

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: <or8xa4x9ig.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:40:39 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <oliva@....ic.unicamp.br>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> wrote:

>> Let's hope courts see it this way.

>> But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
>> copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
>> someone from copying or modifying the binary?  Or is that not so?

> You can use the hardware to stop someone from copying or modifying some
> particular copy of the source code, so long as there is some copy of the
> source code they can copy and modify. You are equivocating between a
> particular copy and any copy at all.

How do you reach this conclusion as to this kind of distinction?

> I agree. You have the legal GPL right to modify any copy of a GPL'd work,
> provided no technical or authorization obstacles stand in your way.

Hey, why stop at these excuses to stop someone from modifying copies
of the GPL?  Why not list legal obstacles as well?

> If the source code is on CDROM, you cannot modify that particular
> copy even though you have the legal right to modify "the source
> code".

Yup.

> The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear whether it
> means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
> construction is that "may" means permission, unless there's some clear
> indication to the contrary. The "may"s in sections one and two are
> permisssion against a claim of copyright enfrocement. The "further
> restriction" clause is, at it states, only on the exercise of *rights*
> (which I think means those rights licensed to you under copyright law,
> namely the right of distribution and copying).

... and modification and, depending on the jurisdiction, execution.

-- 
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/