Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
whether Linux will move to GPL3? I support adoption and congrats to
Stallman -- A++++.
Jeff
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:49:44 -0700
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
> have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
> whether Linux will move to GPL3?
No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the copyright
holders.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:49:44 -0700
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
>> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
>> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
>> have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
>> whether Linux will move to GPL3?
>
> No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the copyright
> holders.
>
I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed
specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING:
> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
On Gwe, 2006-01-20 at 14:34 -0500, Patrick McLean wrote:
> I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed
> specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING:
It may well do, or bits of it may well do but it is rather early to
speculate.
> > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>
> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
It isn't clear that this will be a problem. Very few people specifically
put their code v2 only, and Linus edit of the top copying file was not
done with permission of other copyright holders anyway so really only
affects his code if it is valid at all.
What finally happens is going to depend almost entirely on whether the
GPL v3 is a sane license or not and on consensus, and it is *way* too
early to figure that out.
Patrick McLean wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:49:44 -0700
>> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
>>> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
>>> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts,
>>> and have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus
>>> on whether Linux will move to GPL3?
>>
>>
>> No consensus exists, and it would require agreement from all the
>> copyright
>> holders.
>>
>
> I don't think the kernel is going to move to v3, it's licensed
> specifically as v2, this is from the top of COPYING:
>
> > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>
> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
I can do a ceremony and call them with an eagle bone whistle and a
Califonia Condor Feather. We can then ask them directly.
GPL2 is fine if the kernel stays that way for my projects. moving
forward, the patent retaliation clause is a great idea.
Jeff
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>>
>> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
>> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
>
>
>
> I can do a ceremony and call them with an eagle bone whistle and a
> Califonia Condor Feather. We can then ask them directly.
> GPL2 is fine if the kernel stays that way for my projects. moving
> forward, the patent retaliation clause is a great idea.
> Jeff
I called them at the sacred fire in my ceremony room with music from the
bones of an eagle. They said whatever concensus is reached
by the majority if fine with them. One of them said something about
a woman wearing a crazy hat with a white ostrich feather in it
he did not care for, but that was it.
Jeff
>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
On 1/20/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cudos to Stallman, The patent retaliation clause is exactly what has
> been missing. The inclusion of custom binaries was a little vague, but
> the net of it is that the end user can combine the separate parts, and
> have the freedom to do so given the GPL3 terms. Any concensus on
> whether Linux will move to GPL3? I support adoption and congrats to
> Stallman -- A++++.
GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
--
I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally.
On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
spin it into silly conspiracies?
Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant things?
Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also Stallman's
license?
I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for too
long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try having
some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the
"company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free software'
stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for themselves and their
users -- not for companies. It just happens that Stallman's license allows
business and industry to harmonize.
> --
> I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally.
It would seem...
On 1/21/06, Chase Venters <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> > software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> > person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> > tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> > software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> > probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
>
> Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
> Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
> spin it into silly conspiracies?
Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
This is not exactly the way these words are meant to be used.
> Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant things?
> Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also Stallman's
> license?
Surely significant things/projects do have their origin there. This is
yet another sad consequence. I hope we can someday get rid of all this
'GNU is ...' crap and build a better world that understands 'freedom'
for what it really is, not just
I'll-sue-you-should-you-use-my-code-in-your-proprietary-product stinky
sort of thing.
> I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for too
> long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try having
> some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
He's not a god, nor a prophet, just a human, face it.
> As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the
> "company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free software'
> stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for themselves and their
> users -- not for companies. It just happens that Stallman's license allows
> business and industry to harmonize.
Not even close. Too much of RMS's bloody 'lectures/prophecies/you-name-it'
can do this to a person. So please be careful.
On Friday 20 January 2006 23:56, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on
> > companies? Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that
> > all you can do is spin it into silly conspiracies?
>
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
> nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
> This is not exactly the way these words are meant to be used.
Perhaps you are looking for BSD? This is Linux, and the GPL, and we use
something called 'copyleft' that is designed to ensure everyone has freedom
and no one can take it away.
> > Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant
> > things? Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also
> > Stallman's license?
>
> Surely significant things/projects do have their origin there. This is
> yet another sad consequence. I hope we can someday get rid of all this
> 'GNU is ...' crap and build a better world that understands 'freedom'
> for what it really is, not just
> I'll-sue-you-should-you-use-my-code-in-your-proprietary-product stinky
> sort of thing.
Heh... I suspect you won't be spending much time on or around LKML if that's
your attitude. There are a fair number of kernel developers that believe
strongly enough in all this stuff that they would make legal threats / sue
(rightfully so) over someone writing proprietary drivers.
> > I'm not going to trumpet around in 'patriotic' support of Stallman for
> > too long, but if you're going to go on a Stallman/GPL bashing tirade, try
> > having some real reasons instead of moaning like a rock in the wind.
>
> He's not a god, nor a prophet, just a human, face it.
Indeed, but at least he's provided the world with something of value.
> > As for the implicit allegation that he's wrong for not accepting the
> > "company's" way of doing thing, last I checked, most of this 'free
> > software' stuff was started and written by people as a hobby, for
> > themselves and their users -- not for companies. It just happens that
> > Stallman's license allows business and industry to harmonize.
>
> Not even close. Too much of RMS's bloody 'lectures/prophecies/you-name-it'
> can do this to a person. So please be careful.
What exactly were you saying "not even close" to? That free software is
started and written by most as a hobby? That GPL is business friendly?
Because if you deny it, you're simply WRONG.
I have an important question for you. If you don't like the license /
philosophy / players behind this free software / open source thing, what the
fuck are you doing in LKML? It's really obnoxious to come waltzing into a
community and start telling people "Someone should
probably put an end to these miserable efforts."
In truth, I have some co-workers that feel like you do about copyleft and the
GPL - moaning, groaning and bitching about it. The irony is that they would
be in NO WAY affected by the GPL (it's a *license to distribute*, not a
*contract for use*) unless they decided to make copies. More specifically,
the reason they're always bitching is because they _very specifically_ want
to TAKE and not GIVE BACK.
If you recall, Eric Raymond once said we don't need the GPL anymore. If I
recall correctly, that was the last time Eric Raymond made the headlines. He
rode out on a wave of vast disagreement from the community, and last I
checked, no one has gone from the GPL back to public domain.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Chase Venters <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > > GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> > > software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> > > person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> > > tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> > > software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> > > probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
> >
> > Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
> > Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
> > spin it into silly conspiracies?
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
> nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
The problem with `just sharing' is that some people are only interested in the
`receiving' part of sharing, so unfortunately you need some extra legal stuff
in the license to make sure everyone plays fair.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Alexander Shishckin wrote:
>On 1/21/06, Chase Venters <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
>>>software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
>>>person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
>>>tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
>>>software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
>>>probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
>>>
>>>
>>Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
>>Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
>>spin it into silly conspiracies?
>>
>>
>Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
>'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely
>nothing to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
>
>
Wrong. The GPL does not in any way take away your *freedom to share*.
It does take away your freedom to *restrict* though, it limits your freedom
to *prevent others from sharing*.
What problem could you possibly have with that? Licences are simple -
don't like them, don't use the product. Why complain about it?
I don't like licences where I have to pay *money* just to get some software.
Expensive, and a waste if I end up not using that sw much.
So I try to avoid that kind when possible. Fortunately, that is
possible almost
all the time for me.
Now, if you don't like the GPL - don't use any GPL-licenced products then!
Why nag about it? I don't bitch about how the "pay" licences limits my
business opportunities. (I cannot possibly afford to buy
every payware program.) In particular, I cannot sell PCs containing lots
of pay-licences software without actually _paying_, thereby driving up
the price. But complaining about that would be silly.
The same applies to you. If you want to include GPL stuff in a product,
then your product goes GPL too. That is the _price_ for GPL code. If that
price is too high for you, don't use GPL code then! That should
be fine with you, and fine with us. But again - complaining about it is
silly.
>This is not exactly the way these words are meant to be used.
>
>
>
>>Why do people not recognize that his GNU project has built significant things?
>>Do you not realize that Linux is licensed GPLv2, which is also Stallman's
>>license?
>>
>>
>Surely significant things/projects do have their origin there. This is
>yet another sad consequence. I hope we can someday get rid of all this
>'GNU is ...' crap and build a better world that understands 'freedom'
>for what it really is, not just
>I'll-sue-you-should-you-use-my-code-in-your-proprietary-product stinky
>sort of thing.
>
>
Well, write your own better licence then, and use it! Then you'll have the
satisfaction of seeing others use your code in their proprietary products.
Nobody stops you from doing that.
Helge Hafting
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 08:56 +0300, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Chase Venters <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Friday 20 January 2006 20:27, Alexander Shishckin wrote:
> > > GPLv3 tends to get on top of the most braindead things ever known to
> > > software development. It is, in fact, a one-too-many example of how a
> > > person who cannot be seriously considered to be a computer programmer
> > > tries to have his one-too-many revenge on companies which employ real
> > > software developers and produce real world software. Someone should
> > > probably put an end to these miserable efforts.
> >
> > Why does everyone assume that Stallman is out to 'get revenge' on companies?
> > Is his desire for freedom so hard to grasp and believe that all you can do is
> > spin it into silly conspiracies?
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
No, because MSFTs business model is not the only one in the software
world (though MSFT keeps teaching that).
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
Alexander Shishckin <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely nothing
> to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
How so? The existence of GNU doesn't restrict *my* right to share as *I*
wish. If I, freely, place my stuff under GPL it /does/ restrict other
people in just "sharing" (i.e., taking without giving in return). And that
is fine with me. Not with them, I presume...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Alexander Shishckin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Ain't that obvoius? Every second word that you read in GPLs is either
>> 'freedom' or 'share' and the rest of the document has absolutely nothing
>> to do with both, just restricting our *freedom* to *share*.
>
> How so? The existence of GNU doesn't restrict *my* right to share as *I*
> wish. If I, freely, place my stuff under GPL it /does/ restrict other
> people in just "sharing" (i.e., taking without giving in return). And that
> is fine with me. Not with them, I presume...
> --
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
> Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
> Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
> Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
The problem is that every rule and every law takes
away rights. Laws do not give rights. Rules do not
give rights. Amendments to existing laws sometimes
prevent the restriction of rights (like the first 10
amendments of the US Constitution), however there
are no rules or laws that ever, anywhere, provided
any rights whatsoever. Rules, regulations, and laws
are all about restricting rights.
Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
except in very special circumstances, governments usually
take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
The initial writer was correct. The GPL was supposed
to be all about freedom. Then, there are hundreds of
words that have nothing to do with freedom. They
establish rules. The crybaby says; "You will play
by my rules or..." Rules restrict freedom.
Perhaps these rules are necessary. However, for 20
years before the Internet even existed, people were
sharing source-code without rules. This was the
principle behind the PROGRAM EXCHANGE and other
obsolete BBS systems. At that time the ground-
work of most all the file-compression routines,
file-transmission routines, file-types, flight-
simulators, etc., the stuff now claimed by others,
was freely given away. Some expected their names
to remain in the source, but eventually their
names were changed to "Microsoft" or GPL. For
example, Phil Katz. He invented "zip" and gunzip
and all that stuff. He's now dead. His lifetime
of work has been stolen by others and claimed
as their own.
The Internet gets established and somebody who's
claim-to-fame was the development of the world's
most complicated word-processor, establishes some
legalese and a lot of well intentioned persons
fall into his trap as he claims that he developed
GNU/Linux as well. Wake up.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email protected] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
On Monday 23 January 2006 16:10, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> The problem is that every rule and every law takes
> away rights. Laws do not give rights. Rules do not
> give rights. Amendments to existing laws sometimes
> prevent the restriction of rights (like the first 10
> amendments of the US Constitution), however there
> are no rules or laws that ever, anywhere, provided
> any rights whatsoever. Rules, regulations, and laws
> are all about restricting rights.
>
> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>
> The initial writer was correct. The GPL was supposed
> to be all about freedom. Then, there are hundreds of
> words that have nothing to do with freedom. They
> establish rules. The crybaby says; "You will play
> by my rules or..." Rules restrict freedom.
There's nothing crybaby about it! Copyleft is, as Stallman puts it, to flip
copyright on its head. If there was no such thing as copyright or other forms
of laws / restrictions on sharing ideas and intangible implementations, there
would be zero reason for the GPL because all the GPL aims to do is to
preserve the freedom to share.
So in that sense the GPL is about *enforcing* freedom.
I must admit that I'm terribly confused - I thought all of this was well
understood and accepted. Why must everyone attempt to spin the GPL into
something it is not? The only way the terms of this license would be in any
way restrictive on anyone is if they decided to *exploit* a given GPL work in
order to *restrict* the rights of future users of the work. In that case, the
GPL would intervene and say 'No'.
> Perhaps these rules are necessary. However, for 20
> years before the Internet even existed, people were
> sharing source-code without rules. This was the
> principle behind the PROGRAM EXCHANGE and other
> obsolete BBS systems. At that time the ground-
> work of most all the file-compression routines,
> file-transmission routines, file-types, flight-
> simulators, etc., the stuff now claimed by others,
> was freely given away. Some expected their names
> to remain in the source, but eventually their
> names were changed to "Microsoft" or GPL. For
> example, Phil Katz. He invented "zip" and gunzip
> and all that stuff. He's now dead. His lifetime
> of work has been stolen by others and claimed
> as their own.
The GPL isn't about anyone's "work" or "credit". The licenses that ARE
concerned with "credit" are licenses like the original BSD license with its
attribution clause - you must stamp your product and documentation with
notices that say your stuff was done by the University of Berkeley.
> The Internet gets established and somebody who's
> claim-to-fame was the development of the world's
> most complicated word-processor, establishes some
> legalese and a lot of well intentioned persons
> fall into his trap as he claims that he developed
> GNU/Linux as well. Wake up.
>
Are you suggesting that Stallman claims he developed GNU/Linux? Perhaps I'm
just really misunderstanding what you just said, but if you really did mean
it that way, perhaps you ought to point out where. If you're referring to the
fact that Stallman doesn't like people calling the combination of the kernel
and GNU tools "Linux", then it's only crybaby if you refuse to believe his
published intentions (that "we" care more about open source than free
software, and he's only trying to make sure that "free software" isn't
forgotten). That last part I don't agree with (I think plenty of kernel
people care greatly about free software), but I don't think it's silly to
call the full OS GNU/Linux either.
In any case, I don't think Stallman is concerned about fame so much as he is
concerned with his movement. If it were most other people, I'd say it's all
about fame, but Stallman has at least in my eyes proven himself to
consistently concern himself only with his philosophy.
I don't really blame Stallman for anything he's said that you might take as an
attempt to take credit. I get the impression from seeing the interplay
between "open source" and "free software", ESR and RMS, that ESR would be
happy to write free software and Richard Stallman right out of history. And
since I value "free software" just as much as I value "open source", I don't
want to see that happen.
The bottom line of all my rambling here is that these licenses aren't about
maintaining credit at all, which I think you were implying in your message.
Sans these "You will play by my rules or..." clauses, there would be no huge
open source community because the proprietary software vendors would vacuum
up anything of value and use it as leverage to lock people in. (And as for
your comment about BBSes and the days without licenses, a zillion dollar
proprietary software business had not yet been invented).
If you want open source licenses with no restrictions at all, that's "public
domain". And "public domain" won't ever be what it could be until you abolish
copyright.
Cheers,
Chase
"linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]> writes:
> The problem is that every rule and every law takes
> away rights. Laws do not give rights. Rules do not
> give rights. Amendments to existing laws sometimes
> prevent the restriction of rights (like the first 10
> amendments of the US Constitution), however there
> are no rules or laws that ever, anywhere, provided
> any rights whatsoever. Rules, regulations, and laws
> are all about restricting rights.
True. Without laws, everything would be chaos (some would say "anarchy",
but every anarchist I know have their own rules of conduct and customs).
It's a bit like when the laws of physics take away the universe's right
to to as it pleases (except that the Universe is pretty much the boss,
and if it does something not allowed by the laws, the laws will better
change).
> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
But on the other hand, the (sane) governments give me the right to avoid
being killed by a madman with a gun, because they control who is allowed
to own a gun.
> The initial writer was correct. The GPL was supposed
> to be all about freedom. Then, there are hundreds of
> words that have nothing to do with freedom. They
> establish rules. The crybaby says; "You will play
> by my rules or..." Rules restrict freedom.
And most other "open source" licences take away the programmers freedom
to *keep* derived works free for all to use.
> Perhaps these rules are necessary. However, for 20
> years before the Internet even existed, people were
> sharing source-code without rules. This was the
> principle behind the PROGRAM EXCHANGE and other
> obsolete BBS systems. At that time the ground-
> work of most all the file-compression routines,
> file-transmission routines, file-types, flight-
> simulators, etc., the stuff now claimed by others,
> was freely given away. Some expected their names
> to remain in the source, but eventually their
> names were changed to "Microsoft" or GPL. For
> example, Phil Katz. He invented "zip" and gunzip
> and all that stuff. He's now dead. His lifetime
> of work has been stolen by others and claimed
> as their own.
>
> The Internet gets established and somebody who's
> claim-to-fame was the development of the world's
> most complicated word-processor, establishes some
> legalese and a lot of well intentioned persons
> fall into his trap as he claims that he developed
> GNU/Linux as well. Wake up.
There (probably) wouldn't be a GNU/Linux without the man who developed
the worlds best word-processor (and the worlds best programming editor,
and the framework for the worlds best e-mail client).
--
Hilsen Harald.
Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM
restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released
displays. Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary
drivers available.
Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that Artists
and their sponsors deserve
the right to prevent piracy. In my view the Open Source Community
have an incompatible attitude. In my mind the buying of a DVD means
that I watch it on DVD players be it on my computer or on the TV.
while I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux
based system, it behooves the open source community to support it in a
legal way. Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only
generates huge controversy in concerned industries. An Open Source
Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS community would be
a great diplomatic way to allow for more access to content. My
personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok, however
the converting of such material in a way not granted to me by the
Creator is not ethical. Richard Stallman is painting himself into a
corner in this way.
Hence:
The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and
other DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying
content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain their
works.
Thankyou
On Jan 23, 2006, at 20:55, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
> Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM
> restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released
> displays.
I'm sorry, what are you saying here? I've not heard about these soon-
to-be-released displays, could you elucidate, possibly summarizing or
linking to references?
> Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary drivers
> available.
In many peoples eyes, this would be a _good_ thing, besides, it's not
clear whether or not their binary drivers are legal _now_, without
concern for their status under the GPLv3
> Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that
> Artists and their sponsors deserve the right to prevent piracy.
Have you tried describing music "piracy" to a small child (say, age
6) in a way that distinguishes it from "sharing your things with
other people"? It's rather difficult, possibly even impossible.
Many people argue that with modern technology, this distinction has
become artificial and an artifact of an aging business model. A
number of artists who promote some music sharing have been doing very
well.
> In my view the Open Source Community have an incompatible attitude.
I will ignore the second bit, since it's mostly a matter of opinion,
but the Open Source Community (especially the Linux Community) values
copyright extremely highly. In fact, it is this copyright that makes
the Linux Kernel sources a true democracy. You cannot relicense the
whole without agreement from all (or an extremely large majority
bordering on "all") of the developers consent.
> In my mind the buying of a DVD means that I watch it on DVD players
> be it on my computer or on the TV.
Or, according to Fair Use as set down in a number of court cases,
make a single copy for backup, show privately to friends, convert to
an alternative format for viewing in a different way or with other
equipment.
> While I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux
> based system, it behooves the open source community to support it
> in a legal way.
I go to the store, I find a black box on the shelf, I pick it up, go
to the cashier, pay for it, and leave the store. At that point, I've
purchased an object and may do whatever I like with said object. I
never signed any license or filled out any forms prior to paying
money for it, and there was no condition that I do so, therefore no
_license_ conditions apply.
On the other hand, copying the DVD and giving a copy to all your
friends is _distributing_ it and therefore covered by _copyright_ law
(not license/contract law), which makes it illegal for me to do so
(although my personal opinion is that needs careful review and
possible revision).
> Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only generates
> huge controversy in concerned industries.
<Biased Personal Opinion>
The industries do not matter. The point of the government is to help
and protect the _people_. This means that to a limited extent, the
government protects individuals copyrights, and allows corporations
some rights (because they provide jobs, services, etc). This does
not mean that the government should do anything the industry wants
even though hundreds of millions of people are breaking that law on a
daily basis. Something that widespread (especially given the lack of
issues arising thereof) indicates that the _law_ is wrong, not the
many millions doing the breaking. This bends more towards the
copyright issues I talk about above, but applies here too.
</Biased Personal Opinion>
Besides, a DRM system is pointless and futile; it's trying to protect
data from people by giving them the encrypted data, the algorithm,
and the key. Any cryptographer will tell you that you are bound to
lose from the start.
> An Open Source Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS
> community would be a great diplomatic way to allow for more access
> to content.
Open Source Access Control System:
if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) {
provide_data(media_descriptor);
}
My 3-line patch to "fix" it to let me watch my German DVD in the US:
--- oldfile
+++ newfile
-if (access_allowed(media_descriptor, user_data)) {
provide_data(media_descriptor);
-}
This is a _fundamentally_ _flawed_ idea.
> My personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok
Good
> however the converting of such material in a way not granted to me
> by the Creator is not ethical.
Why does the creator have any say in what you can do with it
personally? I'm legally allowed to buy a copy of MS Windows and burn
it for symbolic value; why the hell would we want to allow a
*CORPORATION* (Read: bunch of greedy rich executives) control what
you can do with stuff. Heck, we don't trust the _government_ (Read:
bunch of greedy rich lawyers), or sometimes even one's personal
_church_ to control.
> The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and other
> DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying
> content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain
> their works.
We don't _need_ to work with anybody, we're just converting abstract
mathematical algorithms to a more practically useable form and
publishing the result. The fact that somebody with lawlessness in
mind could do something illegal with our formalized codified
published math files is totally irrelevant. In the US (where I live,
can't speak for other countries) we don't blame the gun manufacturers
for what people do with submachine guns, so why should we blame the
software developers (Read: practical mathematicians) for what people
do with their programs?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible
-- Alan Kay
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 19:55 -0600, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
[...]
> Copyright for one work is set forward in law. My view is that Artists
> and their sponsors deserve
> the right to prevent piracy. In my view the Open Source Community
Of course and ATM there are - at least in the free world - more than
enough possibilities to punish "piracy" of copied copyrighted work.
The whole DRM (which actually shopuld be read as "Digital Restrictions
Management") and "against copyright piracy" campaign is to take away
legal rights like "playing a legallay produced and bought DVD as often
was you wish" and to limit you to "view it at most 3 times and disallow
any copy - expecially legal ones".
> have an incompatible attitude. In my mind the buying of a DVD means
> that I watch it on DVD players be it on my computer or on the TV.
> while I beleive that I should be able to watch my DVDs on a linux
> based system, it behooves the open source community to support it in a
> legal way. Cracking Access Control Sytems might be fun, but it only
The copyright-industry to-be-implemented access control is in fact
illegal.
> generates huge controversy in concerned industries. An Open Source
Yes, because the concerned industries ignored the develoment in last 20
years. And they don't like certain aspects and rights of e.g.
continental European laws (yes, copying music CDs privately and giving
them away as a birthday present is completely *legal* hereover. We
actually *pay* for this right with ~40 eurocent per writable medium
since decades, i.e. since music tapes were young and paper copying
machines were very expensive).
> Access Control System that is respected by the FOSS community would be
> a great diplomatic way to allow for more access to content. My
You are listening and beliving to the propaganda too much.
> personal view is that copying for my own personal use is ok, however
> the converting of such material in a way not granted to me by the
> Creator is not ethical. Richard Stallman is painting himself into a
The creator (if you mean the artist) and the above mentioned "concerned
industries" are two different things.
And you probably have at the moment far more rights to copy for your
private use than you know - and this is at stake.
The strategic problem, that DRM has is: It doesn't hurt (or even apply
to) the big commercial (and thus illegal) copying organizations. And -
at least as far I the propaganda read - are the big evils.
The only target is the private consumer.
Do you want to pay 1$ for every time you hear a song?
Think of DVDs/CDs which *require* Internet access (next generation game
console will deliver that probably) and a (properly filled) PayPal
account.
> corner in this way.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On 1/24/06, Harald Arnesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> There (probably) wouldn't be a GNU/Linux without the man who developed
> the worlds best word-processor (and the worlds best programming editor,
> and the framework for the worlds best e-mail client).
Last I checked, vim and mutt were not written by RMS.
--
Regards, Wartan.
> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
could clarify.
DS
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 02:23 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> > except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> > take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>
> I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
> such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
> could clarify.
This discussion could not have less to do with kernel development,
PLEASE take it elsewhere.
Lee
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
>> except in very special circumstances, governments usually
>> take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>
> I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
> such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
> could clarify.
>
> DS
Simple, from Government 101. Suppose you start a new country unencumbered
with rules and laws. You have "total" freedom, therefore all rights.
Because you believe that everybody is "good" (you decide what that means)
and would, therefore, never do anything "bad", you don't need any
laws.
Sooner or later somebody does something "bad" (like kills somebody).
So, you make a law against killing. As you make that first law, you
have restricted rights. That's what laws do, they restrict rights.
Unfortunately, it never stops with the "obviously necessary"
laws. Eventually, every time somebody believes he or she has been
harmed somehow, the cry goes out; "There ought to be a law....".
Some goody-twoshoes in the government makes a new law. Eventually,
there are so many laws that there is no freedom whatsoever.
Most laws, designed to protect, have far-reaching consequences that
actually cause more problems than they are supposed to solve. That's
the nature of Law and Government in general. That's why it's important
to control (reduce) the number of laws that exist and control the
size of government. Of course, once the government controls the schools
all is lost.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email protected] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
On Llu, 2006-01-23 at 19:55 -0600, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
> Linux shouldn;t move to the GPL3 for the very reason that the DRM
> restrictions would make linux incompatible with soon to be released
The DRM restrictions mostly only restate some of the less clear effects
of the GPL. The GPL v2 already requires all the keys etc since it
requires the scripts to build. It just makes it clearer.
> displays. Also Nvidia and such would not be able to make binary
> drivers available.
The GPL doesn't permit them to anyway. If they are legal then it is
because they are not derivative works which forms an implicit barrier in
copyright law. Essentially copyright law limits itself to works based on
other works. So as an author of a book I can say "You may not copy this
book" but I cannot (in copyright enforced agreement) say "You may not
write a book on this subject if you read mine", only to control works
based upon mine in a material way (which is what "derivative work" is
all about).
That also means for example that a GPL OS running a non-derivative
application has no power to forbid that application from using DRM
itself.
Now there is a case where it get much messier - GPL with exceptions/LGPL
being the clear one. A glibc that prohibited linking with DRM using code
would raise much more complicated problems, but that is for the
glibc/FSF list to argue over and does need addressing sensibly.
> The GNU/Linux community needs to work with the MPAA, RIAA and
> other DRM players and work to support basic restrictions on copying
> content while preserving the Creator/Companies right to sustain their
> works.
What on earth makes you think those bodies want creators to have any
rights. You've obviously never watched creators and the "industry"
fighting each other. Anyway fighting DRM is actually helping even the
music "industry" if H. Valarian's analysis is correct.
Free Software is about -freedom- that means the freedom to do things
like play music you own the rights to play and the freedom to distribute
music you have the right to distribute. The dream of big music industry
is mandatory DRM where there is no way for an artist to escape their
clutches and publish music without them getting a very large cut of, if
not all the profits.
Much of the big music industry today is like vanity publishing, they
sign you up, bill you for the costs of making the recordings, screw you
on royalty deals then charge you the remainder the royalties didn't
cover.
So why should we work with the RIAA members (especially as there is good
evidence to suggest that one of them stole GPL code for a proprietary
DRM system) ?
Free means that everyone must be able to use Linux
Alan
linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
>>>except in very special circumstances, governments usually
>>>take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
>>such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
>>could clarify.
>>
>> DS
>>
>>
>
>Simple, from Government 101. Suppose you start a new country unencumbered
>with rules and laws. You have "total" freedom, therefore all rights.
>Because you believe that everybody is "good" (you decide what that means)
>and would, therefore, never do anything "bad", you don't need any
>laws.
>
>Sooner or later somebody does something "bad" (like kills somebody).
>So, you make a law against killing. As you make that first law, you
>have restricted rights. That's what laws do, they restrict rights.
>
>
Say rather than restrict rights they define where your rights end and
the rights
of another person begin. Rather they "balance" rights by drawing a line
between
the rights of individuals and the rights of the state. The complex case
is something
called a "compelling interest". i.e. The government has a compelling
interest to
protect citizens from killing each other.
>Unfortunately, it never stops with the "obviously necessary"
>laws. Eventually, every time somebody believes he or she has been
>harmed somehow, the cry goes out; "There ought to be a law....".
>Some goody-twoshoes in the government makes a new law. Eventually,
>there are so many laws that there is no freedom whatsoever.
>
>
>
There are so many laws, you need to have courts in order to perform
"balancing tests" between the rights of individuals (courts of equity)
and the rights of the governement (compelling interests vs. the rights
of Individuals)
>Most laws, designed to protect, have far-reaching consequences that
>actually cause more problems than they are supposed to solve. That's
>the nature of Law and Government in general. That's why it's important
>to control (reduce) the number of laws that exist and control the
>size of government. Of course, once the government controls the schools
>all is lost.
>
>
>
Why Dick, we have something in common -- we are both libertarians (political
party that believes less laws and governemtn control is a very good thing).
Jeff
>Cheers,
>Dick Johnson
>Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips).
>Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
>.
>
>****************************************************************
>The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email protected] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
>
>Thank you.
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
Allowing for the playing of DRM protected content is accepted. While
it is sad to see big business rule the day, it is still copyrighted
works we are talking about. GPL v3 says that the use of DRM in or
around the GPLv3 software would be a direct violation and therfore
illegal under the GPL liscense. Respecting the limits setup by the
DRM or ACS would be a proactive step in making linux more corporate
friendly. Should the individuals producing, directing and starring in
movies and music be penalized for the abuses of the recording
industry. Piracy does exist and supporting the real creative works of
others is important.
According to the Managed Copy Protection in upcoming HD-DVD and
Blu-Ray discs, if the channel between digital display devices is not
authenticated as direct to display, the resolution would be cut to
prevent electronic copies from being easily made.
I seruiosly doubt that anyone commited to the Open Source community
would condone piracy, just as I am sure that Protection schemes always
break down in the end. It is sometimes irresponsible to circumvent
methods designed to protect peoples copyright. The viral liscensing
in the GPL v 2 allows for the best integration with 3rd party
applications.
The GPLv3 would not allow any copyrighted materials under DRM to be
viewed, one could even argue that protected PDF files might constitute
DRM and not be allowed under the new GPL. I think that subverting the
efforts of companies and artists to protect their works is
unnaceptable. Public crap about hacking iTunes to get unprotected
files is detrimental to the Open Source Community. It should be noted
that DRM is not inherently bad, implementations are currently pretty
crappy, but surely an open source DRM could be presented, and a step
to make that happen would be to keep the Kernel under GPLv2.
On 1/24/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
> linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Sometimes the restrictions are necessary. For instance,
> >>>except in very special circumstances, governments usually
> >>>take away the inherent rights to kill, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I guess I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by the word "right"
> >>such that the phrase "inherent rights to kill" is meaningful. Perhaps you
> >>could clarify.
> >>
> >> DS
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Simple, from Government 101. Suppose you start a new country unencumbered
> >with rules and laws. You have "total" freedom, therefore all rights.
> >Because you believe that everybody is "good" (you decide what that means)
> >and would, therefore, never do anything "bad", you don't need any
> >laws.
> >
> >Sooner or later somebody does something "bad" (like kills somebody).
> >So, you make a law against killing. As you make that first law, you
> >have restricted rights. That's what laws do, they restrict rights.
> >
> >
>
> Say rather than restrict rights they define where your rights end and
> the rights
> of another person begin. Rather they "balance" rights by drawing a line
> between
> the rights of individuals and the rights of the state. The complex case
> is something
> called a "compelling interest". i.e. The government has a compelling
> interest to
> protect citizens from killing each other.
>
> >Unfortunately, it never stops with the "obviously necessary"
> >laws. Eventually, every time somebody believes he or she has been
> >harmed somehow, the cry goes out; "There ought to be a law....".
> >Some goody-twoshoes in the government makes a new law. Eventually,
> >there are so many laws that there is no freedom whatsoever.
> >
> >
> >
> There are so many laws, you need to have courts in order to perform
> "balancing tests" between the rights of individuals (courts of equity)
> and the rights of the governement (compelling interests vs. the rights
> of Individuals)
>
> >Most laws, designed to protect, have far-reaching consequences that
> >actually cause more problems than they are supposed to solve. That's
> >the nature of Law and Government in general. That's why it's important
> >to control (reduce) the number of laws that exist and control the
> >size of government. Of course, once the government controls the schools
> >all is lost.
> >
> >
> >
> Why Dick, we have something in common -- we are both libertarians (political
> party that believes less laws and governemtn control is a very good thing).
>
> Jeff
>
> >Cheers,
> >Dick Johnson
> >Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips).
> >Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
> >.
> >
> >****************************************************************
> >The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email protected] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >-
> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >the body of a message to [email protected]
> >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
> >
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 19:21 -0600, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
[...]
> friendly. Should the individuals producing, directing and starring in
> movies and music be penalized for the abuses of the recording
Of course not. But I can't see any mentioning of these in the propaganda
of the big music industry.
> industry. Piracy does exist and supporting the real creative works of
> others is important.
ACK.
But DRM will not stop (or even hinder seriously) the big commercial
copying organizations only the private copies (even if they are legal by
allmeans).
So this argument is plain simply moot.
> I seruiosly doubt that anyone commited to the Open Source community
> would condone piracy, just as I am sure that Protection schemes always
> break down in the end. It is sometimes irresponsible to circumvent
> methods designed to protect peoples copyright. The viral liscensing
> in the GPL v 2 allows for the best integration with 3rd party
> applications.
> The GPLv3 would not allow any copyrighted materials under DRM to be
> viewed, one could even argue that protected PDF files might constitute
> DRM and not be allowed under the new GPL. I think that subverting the
With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
usually not the artist).
> files is detrimental to the Open Source Community. It should be noted
> that DRM is not inherently bad, implementations are currently pretty
No, but the motivation behind and the reasons for it existence is bad.
> crappy, but surely an open source DRM could be presented, and a step
> to make that happen would be to keep the Kernel under GPLv2.
Let's see if DRM actually get accepted or shares the success of micro
channel and other big business must-have "inventions".
[ Fullquote killed ]
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:42 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 19:21 -0600, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
> [...]
> > friendly. Should the individuals producing, directing and starring in
> > movies and music be penalized for the abuses of the recording
>
> Of course not. But I can't see any mentioning of these in the propaganda
> of the big music industry.
>
> > industry. Piracy does exist and supporting the real creative works of
> > others is important.
>
> ACK.
> But DRM will not stop (or even hinder seriously) the big commercial
> copying organizations only the private copies (even if they are legal by
> allmeans).
> So this argument is plain simply moot.
I'll even go a step farther. All these technical restrictions for
prevention of copying really backfires in the end. For example, this
stupid Region coding of DVDs. I go to Germany quite a lot, and to help
out my German, I buy DVDs there so when I'm home I can listen to movies
in German. The problem arises when I try to play these at home, since my
DVD player is coded for the US. The only way I can watch movies that I
legally bought in Germany is to copy them (probably with illegal
software) and turn off the region code so I can watch them on my home
DVD players.
Now here's the kicker. A colleague of mine asked why I even bother
buying the DVDs in the store, when I could buy them on the black market
for a much cheaper price and they will play on my home player. This is
very tempting, but my conscience tells me to pay those that actually
make the films. But it does beg the question of what the Region coding
is actually trying to stop?
Sorry, this is not about kernel programming, any replies should probably
be sent off list.
-- Steve
Patrick McLean wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>
> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
>
>
Makes me wonder if something should be done to address the issue of dead
copyright holders. Not sure what but maybe there should be a clause in
GPL3 addressing that?
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> Patrick McLean wrote:
>
>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, given that several of the copyright holders in the kernel are
>> dead, I don't think we will be able to obtain permission.
>>
>>
>
> Makes me wonder if something should be done to address the issue of
> dead copyright holders. Not sure what but maybe there should be a
> clause in GPL3 addressing that?
Their heirs would have two years to bring a cause of action if they
object. Proper notice could be served by posting a notice on the
internet at kernel.org
that their code is being redistributed under GPL3. I note that the
general notice in the code states "GPL2 or any later version of the
license". Given this
language, it is highly likely the remaining code can proceed under a new
license without incident since it can be assumed they already agreed by
having this general notice posted at kernel.org for many years. I
think the point is moot. Legally, there is exposure if their successors
or owners
of their estates bring action. Those outside the US would of course be
subject to the laws of their jurisdiction. An attorney at FSF needs to
review their
code and render an opinion, but I think it will not be a problem.
Jeff
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>> Makes me wonder if something should be done to address the issue of
>> dead copyright holders. Not sure what but maybe there should be a
>> clause in GPL3 addressing that?
>
>
>
> Their heirs would have two years to bring a cause of action if they
> object. Proper notice could be served by posting a notice on the
> internet at kernel.org
> that their code is being redistributed under GPL3. I note that the
> general notice in the code states "GPL2 or any later version of the
> license". Given this
> language, it is highly likely the remaining code can proceed under a
> new license without incident since it can be assumed they already
> agreed by
> having this general notice posted at kernel.org for many years. I
> think the point is moot. Legally, there is exposure if their
> successors or owners
> of their estates bring action. Those outside the US would of course
> be subject to the laws of their jurisdiction. An attorney at FSF
> needs to review their
> code and render an opinion, but I think it will not be a problem.
>
> Jeff
>
>>
NOTE: Under the Doctrine of Esstopel, if you proceed on this basis and
two years pass without their heirs bringing an action of some sort, then
under this
legal doctrine, the rights to use their code under GPLv3 would in all
probability pass consitutional muster. Again, someone needs to run this
by an attorney at the FSF and get a formal legal opinion rendered. The
Doctrine of Esstopel basically says that if you use something for some
period of time, and no one
objects, then you obtain certain rights to use it permenantly. Not
wanting to disrespect the wishes of the dead, I would attempt to contact
the successors of
their estates in any event and obtain permission, and if not possible,
then proceed.
Jeff
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>>> Makes me wonder if something should be done to address the issue of
>>> dead copyright holders. Not sure what but maybe there should be a
>>> clause in GPL3 addressing that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Their heirs would have two years to bring a cause of action if they
>> object. Proper notice could be served by posting a notice on the
>> internet at kernel.org
>> that their code is being redistributed under GPL3. I note that the
>> general notice in the code states "GPL2 or any later version of the
>> license". Given this
>> language, it is highly likely the remaining code can proceed under a
>> new license without incident since it can be assumed they already
>> agreed by
>> having this general notice posted at kernel.org for many years. I
>> think the point is moot. Legally, there is exposure if their
>> successors or owners
>> of their estates bring action. Those outside the US would of course
>> be subject to the laws of their jurisdiction. An attorney at FSF
>> needs to review their
>> code and render an opinion, but I think it will not be a problem.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>>
> NOTE: Under the Doctrine of Esstopel, if you proceed on this basis
> and two years pass without their heirs bringing an action of some
> sort, then under this
> legal doctrine, the rights to use their code under GPLv3 would in all
> probability pass consitutional muster. Again, someone needs to run
> this by an attorney at the FSF and get a formal legal opinion
> rendered. The Doctrine of Esstopel basically says that if you use
> something for some period of time, and no one
> objects, then you obtain certain rights to use it permenantly. Not
> wanting to disrespect the wishes of the dead, I would attempt to
> contact the successors of
> their estates in any event and obtain permission, and if not possible,
> then proceed.
>
> Jeff
Is it possible to have Linux be mostly GPL3 with parts of it GPL2? Or is
that just too insane to deal with?
On Jan 25, 2006, at 14:24:13, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Is it possible to have Linux be mostly GPL3 with parts of it GPL2?
> Or is that just too insane to deal with?
Well given that parts of the kernel are GPLv2-only, other parts are
GPLv2+, other parts are GPL/BSD, etc, I can't see how somebody using
a GPLv3-only or GPLv3+ license for some other part would be
problematic. If anything, the multiple licensing provides additional
code protection; we get the advantages of all the licenses, but if
any one license is found to be invalid, it does not break the
protection of the body of code itself.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 14:24:13, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> Is it possible to have Linux be mostly GPL3 with parts of it GPL2?
>> Or is that just too insane to deal with?
>
> Well given that parts of the kernel are GPLv2-only, other parts are
> GPLv2+, other parts are GPL/BSD, etc, I can't see how somebody using
> a GPLv3-only or GPLv3+ license for some other part would be
> problematic. If anything, the multiple licensing provides additional
> code protection; we get the advantages of all the licenses, but if
> any one license is found to be invalid, it does not break the
> protection of the body of code itself.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle Moffett
>
The original GPL said something about:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein." (Section 6).
Then, that __exact__ code was redistributed under Version 2
which further restricted rights, then additional versions
which further restricted rights. Now you are planning to
add additional restrictions? I don't think the present
so-called license would pass muster in any sane court in
the United States after the original licensed code was
plagiarized into a new binding license.
Simple test. Pretend the code was a music chart. Music
charts have been copyrighted since the start of the
copyright office. You write some music and, in its
copyright notice, you license anybody to use it as
long as they don't claim that they wrote it. Then
some licensing agency comes along and writes a new
license, effectively claiming ownership by claiming
control (the legal word is conversion). Do you think
for a moment that any court of law would uphold the
new license?
All of Linux has undergone such a conversion and it is
effectively owned by the "Free Software Foundation, Inc."
Of course RMS didn't tell you this when he appropriated
it, but it's done.
If code was written to be distributed under a certain
set of rules, just like sheet-music, nobody but the
writer or his assigns is allowed to change those
distribution rules at a later date. If those rules
are changed, they are invalid, i.e., unenforceable.
You want new rules, you rewrite the kernel from scratch
under the new rules and, you must not produce a derived
work (which has many meanings) in the process or the
new license is unenforceable as well.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.66 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email protected] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, linux-os \(Dick Johnson\) wrote:
>
> The original GPL said something about:
> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein." (Section 6).
> Then, that __exact__ code was redistributed under Version 2
> which further restricted rights, then additional versions
> which further restricted rights. Now you are planning to
> add additional restrictions? I don't think the present
> so-called license would pass muster in any sane court in
> the United States after the original licensed code was
> plagiarized into a new binding license.
>
Try doing your homework. GPL v1 says:
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
> specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any
> later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
> either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
> Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number
> of the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
> Software Foundation.
This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause
was added, but it was after the transition to v2).
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply about "conversion" or FSF
"owning" Linux. Choosing to release your software under the GPL, even when
the GPL is authored by a third party, does not make said third party the
copyright owner of your work.
If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is
if someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version
of the kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
- Chase
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid.
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
> someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
> kernel Linus had marked as "GPLv2 Only". IANAL.
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
>>
>> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
>> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
>> separate clause specifying that "You may only use *this* version of the GPL"
>> as it now does. (I haven't done any research to find out when this clause was
>> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
>
> Bzzt. Look closer.
>
> The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
> been valid.
I see. That makes perfect sense given that the GPL v2 is dated 1991...
this slipped my filters when I was grokking Dick's comment:
>>> The original GPL said something about:
>>> "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
>>> exercise of the rights granted herein." (Section 6).
>>> Then, that __exact__ code was redistributed under Version 2
>>> which further restricted rights,
> The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"
> language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the
> actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
> about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
> want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
> source code.
I wasn't actually referring to the explanatory text; rather, clause 9 in
the section "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND
MODIFICATION". I suppose though upon reading clause 9 again the phrase "If
the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may
choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." is
kind of confusing.
Does the header of the GPL in COPYING ("GNU General Public
License; Version 2, June 1991") count as the "Program" specifying a
version number of the license?
> The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
> chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the "any later
> version" language), but the kernel in general never has.
Agreed.
> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
> license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
> so explicitly. Linux never did.
If the header of the GPL counts as the "Program's" specification of
the version number, I suppose you're right. I just don't really understand
why the language allowing _any_ version of the GPL if the version number
isn't specified then... when would any project ever publish a version of
the GPL license that has been modified to remove any mention of a version
number?
> So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
> tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
> so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
>
> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
>
> And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
> require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
> I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
> happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
> code.
>
Fair enough. I'm not trying to really argue for or against the kernel
switching versions... just trying to address some posts I've seen on LKML
that seem to get the licensing issue _really_ wrong (perhaps I'm now in
that group.)
Cheers,
Chase
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 03:44:13PM -0500, linux-os (Dick Johnson) took 74 lines to write:
>
> All of Linux has undergone such a conversion and it is
> effectively owned by the "Free Software Foundation, Inc."
> Of course RMS didn't tell you this when he appropriated
> it, but it's done.
WTF are you babbling about? Better yet, WTF are you smoking and may I
have some?
Kurt
--
If you give Congress a chance to vote on both sides of an issue, it
will always do it.
-- Les Aspin, D., Wisconsin
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you
> want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you
> have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
you like".
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
panic: kernel segmentation violation. core dumped (only kidding)
Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
>> particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want
>> to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have
>> to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
>
>
> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
> you like".
Right.
:-)
Jeff
>
> regards,
Дана Thursday 26 January 2006 18:59, Paul Jakma је написао(ла):
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
> > particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you
> > want to license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you
> > have to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
>
> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
> you like".
That's right, but
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linux specifies version GPLv2 and only v2. Therefore, for Linux the GPLv2 is
the default.
--
Filip Brcic <[email protected]>
WWWeb: http://purl.org/NET/brcha/home/
Jabber: [email protected]
Jabber: [email protected]
Jabber: [email protected]
ICQ# 40994923
Yahoo! brcha
MSN: [email protected]
El Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:59:01 +0000 (GMT),
Paul Jakma <[email protected]> escribi?:
> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
> you like".
That's not exactly what it says.
The real text is (emphasis mine): "_IF_ the Program does not specify
a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
published by the Free Software Foundation."
Before that it says: "Each version is given a distinguishing version
number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License
which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
later version published by the Free Software Foundation"
IOW, such rules will aply if no version has been specified or
if has the "any later version" addon. Which is not the case:
I can read "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991".
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Filip Brcic wrote:
> Linux specifies version GPLv2 and only v2. Therefore, for Linux the
> GPLv2 is the default.
Note that I didn't say otherwise. I was merely commenting on Linus'
interpretation of the GPL generally.
Btw, with respect to the Linux kernel "v2 only" preamble, Alan Cox's
email earlier in this thread is worth reading.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Man's horizons are bounded by his vision.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:59:01 +0000 (GMT),
> Paul Jakma <[email protected]> escribi?:
>
>> That's not what section 9 seems to say. The default is "any version
>> you like".
>
> That's not exactly what it says.
>
> The real text is (emphasis mine): "_IF_ the Program does not specify
> a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
> published by the Free Software Foundation."
>
>
> Before that it says: "Each version is given a distinguishing version
> number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License
> which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
> following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
> later version published by the Free Software Foundation"
>
>
> IOW, such rules will aply if no version has been specified or
> if has the "any later version" addon. Which is not the case:
> I can read "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991".
>
It's possible there may be something I'm not understanding. I do recognize
that the license has a version number on it.
But then again, so did GPLv1. And it also had the same section 9 clause.
So the question is - why would the GPL need a clause that says "You can
use any version of the GPL if the Program does not specify a version" when
every official version of the GPL includes a version number? Are they
expecting authors to strip the version number header in order to somehow
take advantage of section 9?
Cheers,
Chase
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Diego Calleja wrote:
> The real text is (emphasis mine): "_IF_ the Program does not
> specify a version number of this License, you may choose any
> version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
> Before that it says: "Each version is given a distinguishing
> version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this
> License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the
> option of following the terms and conditions either of that version
> or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation"
> IOW, such rules will aply if no version has been specified or if
> has the "any later version" addon. Which is not the case: I can
> read "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2, June 1991".
That refers to the version of the GPL licence. That is specific to
the licence document and distinct from any text where "the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it ..."
(one suggestion for doing so is given: include a Preamble).
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
"And I want a bike and a monkey and a friend for the monkey."
--Ralph Wiggum
Brother's Little Helper (Episode AABF22)
There seems to be some confusion about licensing. I'm just going to see
if I can define the problem and the issues.
First - some people think all of Linux is under GPLv2 - but some people
seem to think it's really GPLv2 or later. That needs to be resolved. Can
different parts of Linux be controlled by multiple licenses. If so -
that could create confusion because someone would have to agree to all
the licenses within Linux in order to use it. The alternative is to say
it's all GPLv2 and exclude GPLv3 from inclusion. Do we want to do that.
Second - is GPLv3 Linux compatible. If Linux were to start over today
would it pick GPLv2 or GPLv3? Is there anything in GPLv3 that is not
Linux compatible. I would at least like to see GPLv3 (final draft) to be
100% Linux compatible.
Suppose GPLv3 were Linux compatible and many existing authors and new
authors adopted GPLv3 but dead authors and some stubborn people and
people who can't be found are still at GPLv2. Lets also assume that
critical parts of Linux code are licensed in both worlds. What dos that
mean? Does that mean that GPLv3 prevails?
This is something that might be worth doing some serious legal work on
because if we do it wrong it could bite us hard in the future. But I
want to try to properly raise the question here so that we all at least
understand the problem.
My 2 centz ....
El Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:57:27 -0600 (CST),
Chase Venters <[email protected]> escribi?:
> So the question is - why would the GPL need a clause that says "You can
> use any version of the GPL if the Program does not specify a version" when
> every official version of the GPL includes a version number? Are they
> expecting authors to strip the version number header in order to somehow
> take advantage of section 9?
That's what I though. The only sane reason I can find is that many
projects don't even include a copy of the GPL and just say "this
is licensed under the GNU Public License"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
> There seems to be some confusion about licensing. I'm just going to see if I
> can define the problem and the issues.
>
> First - some people think all of Linux is under GPLv2 - but some people seem
> to think it's really GPLv2 or later. That needs to be resolved. Can different
> parts of Linux be controlled by multiple licenses. If so - that could create
> confusion because someone would have to agree to all the licenses within
> Linux in order to use it. The alternative is to say it's all GPLv2 and
> exclude GPLv3 from inclusion. Do we want to do that.
I don't think there are any questions about what the "whole" of Linux is
governed under. It's governed by whatever the most 'restrictive' license
usage is, which is 'GPLv2 Only'. (The fact that GPLv2 Only doesn't apply
to the whole kernel or perhaps even to some past kernels doesn't matter -
you still can't package the whole as GPLv3)
The only discussion I see taking place any longer is basically irrelevant
to Linux and GPLv3 - it concerns whether or not other, older kernel
releases were legally GPLv2 Only or not. A disagreement on either the
intent, mechanism or action of parts of the GPL license, if you will.
> Second - is GPLv3 Linux compatible. If Linux were to start over today would
> it pick GPLv2 or GPLv3? Is there anything in GPLv3 that is not Linux
> compatible. I would at least like to see GPLv3 (final draft) to be 100% Linux
> compatible.
What does Linux compatible mean? Linus expressed some frustrations with
some of the new terms, so perhaps in that sense the new license is not
compatible.
If I'm reading him right, he doesn't want to restrain vendors like TiVO
from using the kernel and subsequently refusing to provide the public with
encryption keys necessary to build kernels to run on that hardware (for
example).
> Suppose GPLv3 were Linux compatible and many existing authors and new authors
> adopted GPLv3 but dead authors and some stubborn people and people who can't
> be found are still at GPLv2. Lets also assume that critical parts of Linux
> code are licensed in both worlds. What dos that mean? Does that mean that
> GPLv3 prevails?
It's mental masturbation at this point. Suppose Linus approved of going to
GPLv3... there may be some little technical gotchas in terms of "dead
authors", but in that hypothetical, how many people would really be
worried that the descendents of these dead authors would actively act to
stop Linux from being distributed under the new license?
The bigger issue is that no matter where you fall on GPL's section 9,
_lots_ of code is undoubtedly GPLv2 only. These living authors would have
to agree to GPLv3, and as we now know, Linus does not.
> This is something that might be worth doing some serious legal work on
> because if we do it wrong it could bite us hard in the future. But I want to
> try to properly raise the question here so that we all at least understand
> the problem.
Why? I think it's pretty much a dead issue.
Cheers,
Chase
Chase Venters wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> There seems to be some confusion about licensing. I'm just going to
>> see if I can define the problem and the issues.
>>
>> First - some people think all of Linux is under GPLv2 - but some
>> people seem to think it's really GPLv2 or later. That needs to be
>> resolved. Can different parts of Linux be controlled by multiple
>> licenses. If so - that could create confusion because someone would
>> have to agree to all the licenses within Linux in order to use it.
>> The alternative is to say it's all GPLv2 and exclude GPLv3 from
>> inclusion. Do we want to do that.
>
> I don't think there are any questions about what the "whole" of Linux
> is governed under. It's governed by whatever the most 'restrictive'
> license usage is, which is 'GPLv2 Only'. (The fact that GPLv2 Only
> doesn't apply to the whole kernel or perhaps even to some past kernels
> doesn't matter - you still can't package the whole as GPLv3)
If I write some code and that code becomes a critical part of the linux
kernel and my code is GPLv3 then no one could use Linux unless they
removed my code. (And all GPLv3 code) - Thus the inclusion of GPLv3 code
would force the whole kernel to be effectively GPLv3. Unless Linus says
nothing gets included unless it's GPLv2.
>
> The only discussion I see taking place any longer is basically
> irrelevant to Linux and GPLv3 - it concerns whether or not other,
> older kernel releases were legally GPLv2 Only or not. A disagreement
> on either the intent, mechanism or action of parts of the GPL license,
> if you will.
>
>> Second - is GPLv3 Linux compatible. If Linux were to start over today
>> would it pick GPLv2 or GPLv3? Is there anything in GPLv3 that is not
>> Linux compatible. I would at least like to see GPLv3 (final draft) to
>> be 100% Linux compatible.
>
> What does Linux compatible mean? Linus expressed some frustrations
> with some of the new terms, so perhaps in that sense the new license
> is not compatible.
In this context Linux compatible means a license that Linus is happy with.
>
> If I'm reading him right, he doesn't want to restrain vendors like
> TiVO from using the kernel and subsequently refusing to provide the
> public with encryption keys necessary to build kernels to run on that
> hardware (for example).
Yes - so perhaps GPLv3 is not Linux compatible. If so - then GPLv3 needs
to be changed or excluded.
>
>> Suppose GPLv3 were Linux compatible and many existing authors and new
>> authors adopted GPLv3 but dead authors and some stubborn people and
>> people who can't be found are still at GPLv2. Lets also assume that
>> critical parts of Linux code are licensed in both worlds. What dos
>> that mean? Does that mean that GPLv3 prevails?
>
> It's mental masturbation at this point. Suppose Linus approved of
> going to GPLv3... there may be some little technical gotchas in terms
> of "dead authors", but in that hypothetical, how many people would
> really be worried that the descendents of these dead authors would
> actively act to stop Linux from being distributed under the new license?
Lawyers of big corporations. Greedy decendents who pull an SCO.
>
> The bigger issue is that no matter where you fall on GPL's section 9,
> _lots_ of code is undoubtedly GPLv2 only. These living authors would
> have to agree to GPLv3, and as we now know, Linus does not.
But if the Kernel contains GPLv3 code then that part of the kernel is
subject to those restrictions. If the code is critical then it
affectively makes Linux subjet to GPLv3. Perhaps the only way to avoid
that is to require the same license for all kernel code?
>
>> This is something that might be worth doing some serious legal work
>> on because if we do it wrong it could bite us hard in the future. But
>> I want to try to properly raise the question here so that we all at
>> least understand the problem.
>
> Why? I think it's pretty much a dead issue.
>
>
When lawyers get involved there is no such thing as a dead issue ..... sigh!
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
> If I write some code and that code becomes a critical part of the linux
> kernel and my code is GPLv3 then no one could use Linux unless they removed
> my code. (And all GPLv3 code) - Thus the inclusion of GPLv3 code would force
> the whole kernel to be effectively GPLv3. Unless Linus says nothing gets
> included unless it's GPLv2.
>
> [more to this effect]
I assume that Linus's dissatisfaction with the GPLv3 means that this
licensing characteristic is implied. I suppose it might be valuable to
have an explicit declaration on this issue.
As for the rest of my message, my remarks and assumptions about how Linux
is governed by the most restrictive clause apply to today's kernel (ie, no
GPLv3 code at all).
I was honestly hoping that this debate wouldn't ignite until when we were
much closer to having the real, final license. Or perhaps that it would
ignite with the purpose of participating in the development of GPLv3.
Neither seems to be the case, and so notwithstanding your concers about
people merging in GPLv3 code, if the issue's not dead already, it's
probably frozen until the real, live GPLv3 gets released.
Cheers,
Chase
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> If I write some code and that code becomes a critical part of the linux
>> kernel and my code is GPLv3 then no one could use Linux unless they removed
>> my code. (And all GPLv3 code) - Thus the inclusion of GPLv3 code would force
>> the whole kernel to be effectively GPLv3. Unless Linus says nothing gets
>> included unless it's GPLv2.
>>
>> [more to this effect]
>
> I assume that Linus's dissatisfaction with the GPLv3 means that this
> licensing characteristic is implied. I suppose it might be valuable to
> have an explicit declaration on this issue.
>
> As for the rest of my message, my remarks and assumptions about how Linux
> is governed by the most restrictive clause apply to today's kernel (ie, no
> GPLv3 code at all).
>
> I was honestly hoping that this debate wouldn't ignite until when we were
> much closer to having the real, final license. Or perhaps that it would
> ignite with the purpose of participating in the development of GPLv3.
> Neither seems to be the case, and so notwithstanding your concers about
> people merging in GPLv3 code, if the issue's not dead already, it's
> probably frozen until the real, live GPLv3 gets released.
>
No. It's dead. Linus says it's dead. It's dead.
QUOTE..."
No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn't going to happen.
Linus
"...ENDQUOTE
> Cheers,
> Chase
Attempting to change existing licensing can invalidate all
licensing. The less done, the better.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.66 BogoMips).
Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
.
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email protected] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> No. You think "v2 or later" is the default. It's not. The _default_ is to
> not allow conversion.
>
> Conversion isn't going to happen.
>
> Linus
>
>
Just for clarification. What you are saying is that anyone who insists
on contributing to the kernel under GPLv3 - that code would be
prohibited from being included in the kernel? That to contribute to the
kernel you must contribute under the terms presently in place?
I'm just asking for clarification.
I don't have a GPLv3 opinion yet since it's a changing document. But I
do see a need for a consistent licensing of the components of Linux to
avoid confusion and I'm worried that if any GPLv3 gets in then it will
be all GPLv3 so you would have to prohibity that if you are going to
stop Linux from becoming GPLv3 by default.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Just for clarification. What you are saying is that anyone who insists
> on contributing to the kernel under GPLv3 - that code would be
> prohibited from being included in the kernel? That to contribute to the
> kernel you must contribute under the terms presently in place?
"terms compatible with those for code already in place". Which is obviously
true for any project, since otherwise you end up with result that can not
be distributed at all.
Trying to look at this from a legal point of view. GPLv3 might actually
contradict GPLv2.
GPLv3 is more RESTRICTIVE than v2. With v2 you didn't have the new
anti-DRM and anti-patent restrictions. The original license says
somewhere that you can't change the license to be more restrictive.
None of us like patents and DRM but language that places new
restrictions on software might not be GPLv2 compatible. Stallman might
need to call his new license something else than GPL if he's going to
add language that adds restrictions.
I can see an argument where GPLv2 prohibits GPLv3.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
> I think that subverting the efforts of companies and artists to protect
> their works is unnaceptable.
That all depends on what they are protecting their works against.
If they were protecting their works against illegal copying, that
protection should indeed not be circumvented.
On the other hand, if all they are "protecting against" is lawful
and legitimate behaviour by joe six-pack consumers, I do not see
why those efforts should be protected or helped...
> It should be noted that DRM is not inherently bad,
It should also be noted that DRM does not protect works against
copying - the one thing that DRM was supposed to achieve.
--
All Rights Reversed
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:42:24 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
> I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
> owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
> others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
> usually not the artist).
Actually, in the US, it is in fact illegal to bypass a protection scheme
*even if the content is something you have legal rights to*.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained
in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
The rest of 1201(a)(1) talks about getting an exemption, good for 3 years only,
to allow you to bypass a control for a non-infringing use.
Got that? You have to apply for special permission to bypass to get data that
you have rights to use....
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:28:45 -0800
Marc Perkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Trying to look at this from a legal point of view. GPLv3 might actually
> contradict GPLv2.
>
> GPLv3 is more RESTRICTIVE than v2. With v2 you didn't have the new
> anti-DRM and anti-patent restrictions. The original license says
> somewhere that you can't change the license to be more restrictive.
>
> None of us like patents and DRM but language that places new
> restrictions on software might not be GPLv2 compatible. Stallman might
> need to call his new license something else than GPL if he's going to
> add language that adds restrictions.
>
> I can see an argument where GPLv2 prohibits GPLv3.
>
As the _owner_ of the code, you can set whatever license(s) you choose.
You don't lose your copyright just because you've granted the rest of
us the right to use your code under the terms of the GPL.
For instance, licensing your code to the world as GPL does not mean you
can't also license it to another group of people under XYZ terms. The
XYZ license may be totally incompatible with the GPL and have many more
restrictions (a prohibition against distribution for instance). Anyone
who has agreed to the XYZ license with you, could also go grab a copy
of the GPL'd code, but would then have to abide by _all_ the GPL
conditions.
Similarly, the owner of each piece of Linux code is free to make the
code he released under GPLv2 available now under v3 without any
conflict or violation of the prohibition against additional restrictions.
Of course, older versions of the code would still be available
under v2 as well; not even the owner can revoke that.
Sean
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:42:24 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
>
> > With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
> > I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
> > owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
> > others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
> > usually not the artist).
>
> Actually, in the US, it is in fact illegal to bypass a protection scheme
> *even if the content is something you have legal rights to*.
Well, the so-called "land of the free". SCNR .....
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
>
> 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
>
> (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
^^^^^^^^^^
> controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
-) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
it, it is obviously not "effective".
-) If I (and no one else) cannot circumvent it, the laws/court decisions
as such is basically pointless because it doesn't limit or hinder
anything.
And we have no definition (in the laws) hereover whatever "effective"
should mean and hoe *I* can determine (which a sufficient large chance
of getting it right) if a given protection scheme must be considered
"effective".
Don't get me wrong, I understand how it is meant what such rules should
achieve an, but I request from lawyers (as such) that they write
laws/court decisions down in an unambigous way (for a non-law person -
remember that laws affect *all* people so every law and court decision
should IMHO readable and understandable by the average citizen).
And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if we
want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts which
cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.
[..]
> Got that? You have to apply for special permission to bypass to get data that
> you have rights to use....
Yes, because that is the primary goal of all of the laws in that area in
last years: To effectively take away legal rights from you that you
actually legally have (or better: had).
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
> should IMHO readable and understandable by the average citizen).
>
> And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if
> we
> want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts
> which
> cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.
Ambiguous laws are compromizes. They are required sometimes. Who will
prevail depends on who can affort the best lawyer in court.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love readable laws, but with the current
politics it isn't possible.
--
Bas Westerbaan
http://blog.w-nz.com/
GPG Pub. Keys: http://w-nz.com/r/f
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 11:13 +0100, Bas Westerbaan wrote:
> > should IMHO readable and understandable by the average citizen).
> >
> > And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if
> > we
> > want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts
> > which
> > cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.
>
> Ambiguous laws are compromizes. They are required sometimes. Who will
Technically, all laws are ambigous (since you do not have them based on
clear definitions as in mathemnatic and the like but only natural
language).
But I have a problem with that extreme type of ambigousness that
actually is IMHO already a contradiction.
And remember: Continental Europe doesn't have case law (except the mess
and intentions produced by the EPO). So the law system here *needs*
relatively clear laws which are of course interpreted by judges in court
and clarified with court decisions. But a court decision actually can
not make a law.
And now explain to me how a judge with a technical knowledge as a
typical 50 year old Win* user should decide if a given "access control"
is "effective" or not?
Of course they have external specialists (how are they callen in
English?) in court who try to explain and give the (fair) opinion on the
given case. But usually each party gets such a quote supporting their
side. So how should the judge actually decide correctly?
And IMHO it doesn't work out to define the judges decision as
"correct" (like usual in the law system as such) if it is technically
incorrect.
> prevail depends on who can affort the best lawyer in court.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'd love readable laws, but with the current
> politics it isn't possible.
It may be worse than with other politics, but layers are not interested
in readable laws.
You can make much more money out of a system where you need secret
languages (think of the catholic church in early medieval age with
everything in Latin) .....
Bernd, fairly off-topic now. Sorry.
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
> general.
I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
the Linux kernel.
> And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
> require people to make their private signing keys available, for
> example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is
> going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to
> convert any of my code.
I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I
assume you're referring to this part:
GPLv3-draft1:
> (...)
> Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or
> authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source
> code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or
> principal context of use, such that its functioning in all
> circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by
> your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary
> to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code
> need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies
> the user already has it.
> (...)
I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make
it difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that. I'm
not sure this would affect the Linux kernel at all and I don't think it
would require any of your private keys to be disclosed at all. If you
would sign or encrypt the kernel distribution with your private key,
everyone would need to have access to your public key, but that's the
whole idea anyway.
Cheers
Simon
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:54:07AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
> for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
> -) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
> it, it is obviously not "effective".
Wrong definition, try again. "Effective" has multiple meanings in
english, one of them being "existing in fact, not theorical, real".
Check wordnet, it's getting impressively usable nowadays.
In other words, "effective"'s meaning can either move towards
"efficient" or "actual/existing", depending on the context.
OG.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:46:17AM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
> > individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
> >general.
>
> I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
> quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
> people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
> they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
> saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
> the Linux kernel.
Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is incompatible
with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:46:17AM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
>>> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
>>> general.
>> I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
>> quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
>> people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
>> they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
>> saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
>> the Linux kernel.
>
> Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is incompatible
> with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the "or"
should be an "and"? ;-), v2 in the kernel and v3(or any later version,
etc.), if the code is used outside of the kernel, it would "fall back
to" v3+ as soon as it's taken out of the kernel and used in something else.
If I'd want to contribute code to the kernel, I'd have to comply with
the license of the kernel, which is v2 of the GPL. If I would actually
prefer my code to be licensed under v3 or higher, I'd have to specify
that my code is only licensed under v2 for the kernel to humour Linus
Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel, but in all other ways
the code is used, I only grant a license to copy under the conditions of
the GPL v3 or higher. I don't see why that would affect the distribution
of the kernel at all.
Cheers
Simon
--
phone:(+31|0)53 4810319
fax: (+31|0)53 4810333
[email protected]
http://www.ti-wmc.nl/
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> If I'd want to contribute code to the kernel, I'd have to comply with
> the license of the kernel, which is v2 of the GPL. If I would actually
> prefer my code to be licensed under v3 or higher, I'd have to specify
> that my code is only licensed under v2 for the kernel to humour Linus
> Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel, but in all other ways
> the code is used, I only grant a license to copy under the conditions of
> the GPL v3 or higher. I don't see why that would affect the distribution
> of the kernel at all.
"GPLv2 only for the kernel" is a different license than "GPLv2" and is
incompatible with GPLv2.
OG.
Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>> If I'd want to contribute code to the kernel, I'd have to comply with
>> the license of the kernel, which is v2 of the GPL. If I would actually
>> prefer my code to be licensed under v3 or higher, I'd have to specify
>> that my code is only licensed under v2 for the kernel to humour Linus
>> Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel, but in all other ways
>> the code is used, I only grant a license to copy under the conditions of
>> the GPL v3 or higher. I don't see why that would affect the distribution
>> of the kernel at all.
>
> "GPLv2 only for the kernel" is a different license than "GPLv2" and is
> incompatible with GPLv2.
>
hmm, so if I want to contribute to the kernel, but prefer my code to be
licensed under GPLv3 or higher, I would be unable to submit it to the
kernel unless I "lower my standards" to GPLv2 or higher?
If someone wants to use that code elsewhere, he can take it from the
kernel and re-use it in a GPLv2 project and further, which may violate
the terms of GPLv3 and would therefore conflict with my interests.
Of course, this may be purely theoretical, but it could block people
from submitting code to the kernel in order avoid the v2 GPL license.
From this, I think it could be concluded that it might turn out to be
quite harmful if code under GPLv3+ cannot be combined with the linux
kernel...
/Simon
PS, IANAL
Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:46:17AM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
>>>> individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in
>>>> general.
>>> I believe that if v2 and v3 turn out to be incompatible, it would be
>>> quite hard to rationalise v3+ licensed files inside the kernel. So when
>>> people want their code to be in the kernel and still be v3+ compatible,
>>> they should probably dual license it, or include a specific section
>>> saying that the code can be licensed under v2 only if in the context of
>>> the Linux kernel.
>>
>> Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is
>> incompatible
>> with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
> If I would actually prefer my code to be licensed under v3 or higher,
> I'd have to specify that my code is only licensed under v2 for the
> kernel to humour Linus Torvalds and respect the license of the kernel,
> but in all other ways the code is used, I
I think what the "Bzzert" is implying is that once you license your code
under the GPL v2 for the kernel use, it's then licensed that way for
distribution. You can't prohibit people from using it in other contexts
with that license or it violates the GPL v2 license and then can't be
distributed with the kernel, either. If I'm reading that correctly.
To cross license you'd have to allow either license for any use, really,
as long as the use complies with the license. Adding 'if the code is
used outside of the kernel, it would "fall back to" v3+' would violate
the GPL v2.
-- Chris
On Jan 27, 2006, at 09:00, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the
> "or" should be an "and"? ;-), v2 in the kernel and v3 (or any later
> version, etc.), if the code is used outside of the kernel, it would
> "fall back to" v3+ as soon as it's taken out of the kernel and used
> in something else.
You cannot say "This code is GPLv2 only in the context of the
kernel". You may say "This code is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv3".
The reasoning behind this is as follows: If I take a kernel tree,
and apply a large patch that removes all of the code except for your
driver, the result is perfectly legal to distribute under GPLv2
(because I took a combined GPLv2 source, applied any modification I
felt like (such as deleting everything except one of the drivers),
and therefore get a GPLv2 source.
One thing I am not sure about: If you have a kernel which contains
code licensed under GPLv2 only and code licensed under GPLv3 only,
would it be redistributable at all? If so, under what conditions/
terms? IANAL, so take the following with a couple pounds of salt;
since GPLv2 says something like "You cannot add any additional
restrictions", and GPLv3 adds additional restrictions, it might be
true that the composite is not legally redistributable even though
the two individual parts are, no?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
They _will_ find opposing experts to say it isn't, if you push hard
enough the wrong way. Idiots with a PhD aren't hard to buy.
-- Rob Landley
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:42:29PM +0100, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> hmm, so if I want to contribute to the kernel, but prefer my code to be
> licensed under GPLv3 or higher, I would be unable to submit it to the
> kernel unless I "lower my standards" to GPLv2 or higher?
>
> If someone wants to use that code elsewhere, he can take it from the
> kernel and re-use it in a GPLv2 project and further, which may violate
> the terms of GPLv3 and would therefore conflict with my interests.
>
> Of course, this may be purely theoretical, but it could block people
> from submitting code to the kernel in order avoid the v2 GPL license.
>
> From this, I think it could be concluded that it might turn out to be
> quite harmful if code under GPLv3+ cannot be combined with the linux
> kernel...
That's GPL working *as* *intended*. No, you can't create a derivative
of GPLv2 program and prohibit the use of your modifications in other
GPLv2 programs. It's not just "Linus won't accept it upstream"; it's
"you can't even distribute such fork yourself". And it's 100% intentional -
that's what GPL is about.
As for the harm... We somehow survived years of similar "harmful" situation.
No, you can't put proprietary code in kernel and prohibit other GPLv2
projects to reuse it. Yes, it would theoretically turn some authors of
extremely valuable (but never materializing) code away. And yes, there had
been very similar whining and dire warnings. Nothing new here...
Al Viro wrote:
>
> That's GPL working *as* *intended*. No, you can't create a derivative
> of GPLv2 program and prohibit the use of your modifications in other
> GPLv2 programs. It's not just "Linus won't accept it upstream"; it's
> "you can't even distribute such fork yourself". And it's 100% intentional -
> that's what GPL is about.
I think I understand the GPL, but I'm not a lawyer :-)
> As for the harm... We somehow survived years of similar "harmful" situation.
> No, you can't put proprietary code in kernel and prohibit other GPLv2
> projects to reuse it. Yes, it would theoretically turn some authors of
> extremely valuable (but never materializing) code away. And yes, there had
> been very similar whining and dire warnings. Nothing new here...
The comparison between proprietary and GPLv3 code is disconcerting and
strangely funny in this way :-/
What I think *is* new here is that some people would consider GPLv3 a
logical extension of GPLv2 (in the sense of enhancing freedom), but if
it turns out that it's so different from GPLv2 that GPLv3 code cannot be
mixed into the v2 kernel, which does stem from the same philosophy.
I suppose I'll just wait for the next draft and check again...
thanks for the feedback!
/Simon
--
phone:(+31|0)53 4810319
fax: (+31|0)53 4810333
[email protected]
http://www.ti-wmc.nl/
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:54:07 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> > 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
> >
> > (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition conta
ined
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
> for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
> -) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
> it, it is obviously not "effective".
As Skylarov found out when he got into a pissing match with Adobe, ROT-13
qualifies as an "effective access control" as far as the law is concerned.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And quite frankly, I don't see that changing. I think it's insane to
> require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
> I wouldn't do it.
Linus, I think you are missing the point here. I see this provision as one
of the most important fixes in GPL v3. It might not be perfect in the way
it is presented in the draft, but the rationale is certainly laudable.
This closes a very serious loophole, that in certain situations renders
the GPLv2 almost worthless. The problem is embedded systems, but
especially cellphones.
A typical smartphone has a baseband processor (running the GSM stack under
a proprietary OS - let's call it the Baseband OS) and an application
processor (running the PDA features and GUI, for example Symbian OS or
Linux, let's call it the Application OS). Newer phones use a microkernel
architecture where the two OS's each run as tasks under a microkernel so
that a single CPU can be shared, but that's not relevant for this point.
The practice for many phone manufacturers is to heavily encrypt and sign
all ROM images that go on the phone. They do this for several reasons, but
mostly to prevent end-users from modifying the baseband code (where things
like SIM-locks and network locks are stored) or changing the IMEI number
of stolen phones.
However, most manufacturers extend this protectin to also encompass the
PDA-side code. This is understandable (to an extent) where the operating
system is proprietary or licensed (e.g. Symbian OS) and not available for
end-users to modify in any case.
But when Linux is used instead (something that most major handset
manufacturers are working on at the moment), this whole picture changes.
Suddenly the whole point of "Free Software" goes away. Because the handset
manufacturer modifies, adapts and uses the Linux kernel (for free),
without having to give anything back to the community. Yes, they have to
make their modified source available, but there is no way a casual user
(read: someone not a member of the phone-unlocking mafia) can update the
kernel with a modified, recompiled version.
But it goes further. The manufacturer is free to embed "trusted
computing" technology into the kernel (e.g. digital signing of all
executables that can run on the phone), as long as the encryption
technology is included in the kernel (they can even embed the
public key in the published sources, and you have no way of
obtaining the secret key) - thereby preventing the user from running ANY
code on the phone not pre-approved by the manufacturer.
Their main motivation for doing this is basically to protect the mobile
network operators' revenue, by preventing (or at least limiting)
installation of things such as VoIP clients and instant messenger systems
that could lead towards an "open TCP/IP" infrastructure that all the
operators fear so much.
The prime example of this is what is already implemented is Symbian OS. In
Version 9, used by the latest handsets from Nokia and Sony Ericsson, it is
impossible to install applications that are not signed by an independent
testing house, something that effectively locks small businesses and
independent hobby coders out of the market. There are even certain
"capabilities", needed for example to implement networking protocols, that
can only be signed if approved by the phone manufacturer.
The only way to prevent Linux from being abused in this way is to require
that the end-users have a method of installing the modified code on the
device for which it was intended (such as your phone). If they don't want
to disclose their primary signing keys, fine, but then they need to make
another method available of replacing any free software used in the device
with a modified (by the end-user) version. I understand the need to
protect the non-GPL'ed "baseband" OS from tampering, but it has to be
possible to replace the GPL'ed software. This is what this provision is
all about (for me), and I think it is an extremely important one.
Of course I have focused on cellphones, but the same is equally true for
other embedded devices, such as digital TV boxes (e.g. PVR's). If I want
to add a nice feature (and share the patch with my friends who bought the
same box) I should be free to do so. Isn't that what Free Software is all
about?
Thomas
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Just for clarification. What you are saying is that anyone who insists on
> contributing to the kernel under GPLv3 - that code would be prohibited from
> being included in the kernel? That to contribute to the kernel you must
> contribute under the terms presently in place?
No. We actually have a lot of code that is more widely licensed than just
GPLv2. There's the GPL/BSD code, and there's a lot of files that have the
".. or any later version" addendum which means that they are GPLv3
compatible.
The only thing that the kernel requires is that since the majority of the
code is actually GPLv2-only, that in order for you to be able to link with
the code, your license has to be GPLv2-compatible.
A "GPLv3 _only_" license is not compatible with GPLv2, since v3 adds new
limitations to re-distribution. But what you can do is to dual-license the
code - the same way we've had GPL/BSD dual licenses. Of course, that
effectively becomes the same as "GPLv2" with the "any later version"
clause, but if you like the v3 in _particular_, you can actually mention
it specifically (ie you can dual-license under "v2 _or_ v3", but without
the "any later version" wording if you want).
Note that the Linux kernel has had the clarification that the "by default,
we're version-2 _only_" for a long time, and that limitation is not a new
thing.
You can argue that I should have made that clear on "Day 1" (back in 1992,
when the original switch to the GPL happened), but the fact is, all of the
development for the last five or more years has been done with that "v2
only, unless otherwise stated" (I forget exactly when it happened, but it
was before we even started using BK, so it's a loong time ago).
Also, this has been discussed before, and anybody who felt that they
didn't want to have the "v2 only" limitation has been told to add the "or
any later version" thing to their own code, so nobody can claim that I
restricted their licensing.
So to recap:
- Linux has been v2-only for a _loong_ time, long before there was even
any choice of licenses. That explicit "v2 only" thing was there at
least for 2.4.0, which is more than five years ago. So this is not some
sudden reaction to the current release of GPLv3. This has been there
quite _independently_ of the current GPLv3 discussion.
- if you disagree with code you write, you can (and always have been
able) to say so, and dual-license in many different ways, including
using the "or later version" language. But that doesn't change the fact
that others (a _lot_ of others) have been very much aware of the "v2
only" rule for the kernel, and that most of the Linux kernel sources
are under that rule.
- People argue that Linux hasn't specified a version, and that by virtue
of paragraph 9, you'd be able to choose any version you like. I
disagree. Linux has always specified the version: I don't put the
license in the source code, the source code just says
Copyright (C) 1991-2002 Linux Torvalds
and the license is in the COPYING file, which has ALWAYS been v2. Even
before (for clarification reasons) it explicitly said so.
In other words, that "if no version is mentioned" simply isn't even an
argument. That's like arguing that "if no license is mentioned, it's
under any license you want", which is crap. If no license is mentioned,
you don't have any license at all to use it. The license AND VERSION
has always been very much explicit: linux/COPYING has been there since
1992, and it's been the _version_2_ of the license since day 1.
People can argue against that any way they like. In the end, the only
way you can _really_ argue against it is in court. Last I saw,
intentions mattered more than any legalistic sophistry. The fact that
Linux has been distributed with a specific version of the GPL is a big
damn clue, and the fact that I have made my intentions very clear over
several years is another HUGE clue.
- I don't see any real upsides to GPLv3, and I do see potential
downsides. Things that have been valid under v2 are no longer valid
under v3, so changing the license has real downsides.
Quite frankly, _if_ we ever change to GPLv3, it's going to be because
somebody convinces me and other copyright holders to add the "or any later
license" to all files, just because v3 really is so much better. It
doesn't seem likely, but hey, if somebody shows that the GPLv2 is
unconsitutional (hah!), maybe something like that happens.
So I'm not _entirely_ dismissing an upgrade, but quite frankly, to upgrade
would be a huge issue. Not just I, but others that have worked on Linux
over the last five to ten years would have to agree on it. In contrast,
staying with GPLv2 is a no-brainer: we've used it for almost 15 years, and
it's worked fine, and nobody needs any convincing.
And that really is a big issue: GPLv2 is a perfectly fine license. It has
worked well for us for fourteen years, nothing really changed with the
introduction of GPLv3. The fact that there is a newer license to choose
from doesn't detract from the older ones.
Linus
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is incompatible
> with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
Indeed. The GPL (both v2 and v3) disallow restricting usage.
So certain _code_ can be either v2 or v3 only, but you can't make that
decision based on how the code is used.
So you can't license, for example, your code "udner the GPL only for the
Linux kernel". Trust me, some companies have actually wanted to do exactly
that - they wanted to distribute their code, but _only_ for the kernel
(and you'd not be allowed to use it for any other GPL'd project). That
just cannot fly. It's either GPL, or it isn't. There's no "GPL with the
following rules".
Linus
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>
> really? if it was dual licensed (that's what I meant, perhaps the "or" should
> be an "and"? ;-), v2 in the kernel and v3(or any later version, etc.), if the
> code is used outside of the kernel, it would "fall back to" v3+ as soon as
> it's taken out of the kernel and used in something else.
You very much _can_ dual-license it, and say "for the kernel, we license
it under GPLv2".
But if you do that, then the GPLv2 licensing in the kernel means that
somebody else can take it from the kernel, and ti can still be under the
GPLv2 too (_and_ the GPLv3, for that matter - the kernel GPLv2 license in
no way takes away the ability to use it in any other way that you've
dual-licensed it).
In other words, you cannot say "outside of the kernel, you ahve to use the
GPLv3", because the GPLv2 usage _inside_ of the kernel requires that the
GPLv2 also be usable outside of it.
But you most definitely _can_ dual-license in general. It's perfectly fine
to license something under the GPLv2 and allow redistribution with the
kernel, _and_ have the same code as part of some other project under
GPLv3.
It's just that you cannot limit the kernel version to just a kernel
project. Somebody can (at any time) take the Linux kernel, and turning it
into some totally other GPL-v2-licensed project.
(This really is not at all specific to the GPLv3 - the same thing holds
for any other dual licensing with the GPL. You cannot license your
proprietary code to be "GPL only within the kernel, and proprietary
anywhere else". The GPL inherently requires that the code can be used in
another project).
Linus
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I
> assume you're referring to this part:
>
> [ snipped ]
Yes.
> I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make it
> difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that.
IF that is the legal interpretation, then yes, I'd agree with you. And no,
I'm not a lawyer. However, the way I read it, it's not about just not
being able to hide the object code - it's fundamentally about being able
to replace and run the object code.
I may indeed be reading it wrong, but I don't think I am. It explicitly
says "install and/or execute".
So I think it says that if I have a private signing key that "enables" the
kernel on some hardware of mine, GPLv3 requires that private key to be
made available for that hardware. Note how that is tied to the _hardware_
(or platform - usualyl the checking would be done by firmware, of course),
not the actual source code of the program.
And that's really what I don't like. I believe that a software license
should cover the software it licenses, not how it is used or abused - even
if you happen to disagree with certain types of abuse.
I believe that hardware that limits what their users can do will die just
becuase being user-unfriendly is not a way to do successful business. Yes,
I'm a damned blue-eyed optimist, but I'd rather be blue-eyed than consider
all uses of security technology to necessarily always be bad.
Linus
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Trying to look at this from a legal point of view. GPLv3 might actually
> contradict GPLv2.
The GPLv2 is explicitly written so that _nothing_ else than a GPLv2
license can be compatible with it.
At most you can dual-license and effectively allow extra rights that way,
but the point is that the GPLv2 is always the limit for any restrictions
(and it's written so that anybody can always take any but the GPLv2
freedoms away - so if you dual-license, your licensees can always decide
to _only_ honor the GPLv2, and ignore any other license).
That's why, in order to re-license anythingt from GPLv2 to anything else,
the license grant itself must make it clear that the "anything else" was
always permissible in the first place. Which is why the FSF had only two
"outs": either people explicitly do the "..or any later version" thing,
_or_ people don't mention the version of the GPL at all, in which case any
version will do.
Linus
Once upon a time, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> said:
>I believe that hardware that limits what their users can do will die just
>becuase being user-unfriendly is not a way to do successful business. Yes,
>I'm a damned blue-eyed optimist, but I'd rather be blue-eyed than consider
>all uses of security technology to necessarily always be bad.
I haven't read the GPLv3 draft myself, but I would guess that private
signing key language is aimed squarely at TiVo. They use a Linux
kernel, but only kernel binaries signed by them will load (so you can't
modify the kernel without jumping through hoops). Is that
"user-unfriendly"? Probably so, but only to a small percentage of the
users.
--
Chris Adams <[email protected]>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
[This is a repost of the private reply given that lkml wasn't cc'ed]
Thomas Horsten wrote:
>> But when Linux is used instead (something that most major handset
>> manufacturers are working on at the moment), this whole picture changes.
>> Suddenly the whole point of "Free Software" goes away. Because the handset
>> manufacturer modifies, adapts and uses the Linux kernel (for free),
>> without having to give anything back to the community. Yes, they have to
>> make their modified source available, but there is no way a casual user
>> (read: someone not a member of the phone-unlocking mafia) can update the
>> kernel with a modified, recompiled version.
And I would contend that even if they did it wouldn't make much of a
difference. In fact, my reading of GPLv3 is that it would be quite
straight-forward to create GPLv3-compliant consumer exclusion mechanisms.
Here's from an earlier posting I did on the LWN forum discussing the topic:
----------
Prior to booting kernel, let the firmware verify the kernel's signature.
Whether or not the signature is valid, boot the thing. But, if it isn't
valid, lock up or disable or just don't enable those hardware components
that control access to the "stuff" -- and do this in a way that requires
a hard reset for another pass at lock/don't-lock. Then package all the
proprietary/DRM software into individual applications. So everything just
runs as normal up to the time these apps try to access the hardware,
and now because it's disabled, the device is useless.
Using the words of the draft, there are no codes for you to "install and/
or execute" the work. In fact, you're free to install and execute any
kernel you wish. Plus, the kernel's "functioning in all circumstances is
identical". It's just that hardware beneath it just doesn't work any more,
and that, consequently, the proprietary applications running on top can't
do anything because the hardware is disabled.
There you have it, GPL3-compatible DRM -- to the best of my understanding
of course, and mind you I'm not a lawyer.
----------
Just to make sure there is no confusion: note that both signed and
unsigned kernels behave identically here. It's the user-space applications
now that fail when attempting to access some piece of hardware. The
classic case being a mmap'ed register window, therefore both the signed
and unsigned kernel can map it to user-space (i.e. no modification in
behavior for the GPLv3'ed kernel), but the applications' read/writes on
said registers don't work on the non-signed kernel.
Like I said in the LWN forum thread, I do believe things such as DRM
are worth fighting for, but I really think the GPL is the wrong venue.
>> The only way to prevent Linux from being abused in this way is to require
>> that the end-users have a method of installing the modified code on the
>> device for which it was intended (such as your phone). If they don't want
>> to disclose their primary signing keys, fine, but then they need to make
>> another method available of replacing any free software used in the device
>> with a modified (by the end-user) version. I understand the need to
>> protect the non-GPL'ed "baseband" OS from tampering, but it has to be
>> possible to replace the GPL'ed software. This is what this provision is
>> all about (for me), and I think it is an extremely important one.
And entirely useless if you ask me. A GPLv3 could dictate that you could
replace the kernel, but it isn't a hardware license nor a license for
user-space applications -- both of which's direct interaction could not
be dictated by the license of separate "work".
So, in the end, even if this were applied, you would find yourself in a
world where you can replace kernels, but that apart from having access
to running programs on a given architecture, play around with the RAM,
and access entirely unimportant hardware, you can't do very much.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Just to make sure there is no confusion: note that both signed and
> unsigned kernels behave identically here. It's the user-space applications
> now that fail when attempting to access some piece of hardware. The
> classic case being a mmap'ed register window, therefore both the signed
> and unsigned kernel can map it to user-space (i.e. no modification in
> behavior for the GPLv3'ed kernel), but the applications' read/writes on
> said registers don't work on the non-signed kernel.
That would be a dubious circumvention. Remember that the GPLv3 is still a
draft - the wording can (and should probably) be improved to make it clear
that the system as a whole must behave identically if a modified version
of the GPL'ed software is used.
> Like I said in the LWN forum thread, I do believe things such as DRM
> are worth fighting for, but I really think the GPL is the wrong venue.
It's a good place to start putting pressure on the OEM's. If they can
choose between heavy DRM'ed and closed hardware, and pay millions in
license fees, or get the software they need for free in return for
dropping the restrictions, some are bound to choose the free route. This
is where the fight begins.
Thomas
> It's a good place to start putting pressure on the OEM's. If they can
> choose between heavy DRM'ed and closed hardware, and pay millions in
> license fees, or get the software they need for free in return for
> dropping the restrictions, some are bound to choose the free route. This
> is where the fight begins.
>
It'd be nice to think that licensing fees wouldn't make a difference
as people would understand that locking themselves into something
they're not allowed to exert any control over is not a good idea... &
so oem's would have to chose due to revenue loss rather than simply
'licensing savings'.
Unfortunately I doubt we're anywhere near close enough yet, so I'll
get my head out of cloud nine...
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:51 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:54:07 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
> > >
> > > (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > > controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition conta
> ined
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
> > for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
> > -) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
> > it, it is obviously not "effective".
>
> As Skylarov found out when he got into a pissing match with Adobe, ROT-13
If even ROT-13 is "effective access control", anything which is titles
"Access Control" applies.
> qualifies as an "effective access control" as far as the law is concerned.
AFAICS several folks got my point ....
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
* Simon Oosthoek:
> GPLv3-draft1:
>> (...)
>> Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or
>> authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source
>> code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or
>> principal context of use, such that its functioning in all
>> circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by
>> your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary
>> to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code
>> need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies
>> the user already has it.
>> (...)
>
> I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make
> it difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that.
I view it slightly different. Suppose you produce a device which can
only boot images signed by a certain public key. In this case, you
can give your users source code, but they can't change it and run it
on the device because the signature does not match. This is a real
threat to software freedom.
Such technology already exists, see for an example:
<http://java.sun.com/products/jce/doc/guide/HowToImplAProvider.html>
The reasons for that are entirely obscure (because anyone can obtain a
certificate, there is no kind of quality control) and likely only
related to export regulations. But a similar approach could be used
elsewhere, to exercise more control over which code can run on a
certain platform.
On Saturday 28 January 2006 02:33, you wrote:
> Copyright (C) 1991-2002 Linux Torvalds
^
And I thought I was the only one doing this mistake
from time to time. :P
--
Greetings Michael.
Michael Buesch wrote:
>On Saturday 28 January 2006 02:33, you wrote:
>
>
>> Copyright (C) 1991-2002 Linux Torvalds
>>
>>
> ^
>And I thought I was the only one doing this mistake
>from time to time. :P
>
>
>
I do it to all the time. Freudian Slip.
:-)
Jeff
Ian Kester-Haney <[email protected]> writes:
> The GPLv3 would not allow any copyrighted materials under DRM to be
> viewed, one could even argue that protected PDF files might constitute
> DRM and not be allowed under the new GPL.
That is not how I read the GPLv3. The way I read it is that a GPL'd
application cannot be used to *create* the protection, not that it
cannot be used to view or use the protected work.
On Sat, January 28, 2006 5:39, Linus Torvalds said:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I
>> assume you're referring to this part:
>>
>> [ snipped ]
>
> Yes.
>
>> I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make
>> it difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that.
>
> IF that is the legal interpretation, then yes, I'd agree with you. And no,
> I'm not a lawyer. However, the way I read it, it's not about just not
> being able to hide the object code - it's fundamentally about being able
> to replace and run the object code.
After some more reading and thinking, I agree with your interpretation.
> I may indeed be reading it wrong, but I don't think I am. It explicitly
> says "install and/or execute".
>
> So I think it says that if I have a private signing key that "enables" the
> kernel on some hardware of mine, GPLv3 requires that private key to be
> made available for that hardware. Note how that is tied to the _hardware_
> (or platform - usualyl the checking would be done by firmware, of course),
> not the actual source code of the program.
>
> And that's really what I don't like. I believe that a software license
> should cover the software it licenses, not how it is used or abused - even
> if you happen to disagree with certain types of abuse.
>
> I believe that hardware that limits what their users can do will die just
> becuase being user-unfriendly is not a way to do successful business. Yes,
> I'm a damned blue-eyed optimist, but I'd rather be blue-eyed than consider
> all uses of security technology to necessarily always be bad.
>
[snip: you don't like further restrictions on what people do with the
binaries]
I suppose this could be the achilles heel of the GPLv2, when a device
could be running perfectly free software, but the compiled work will only
run when signed with a private key of the manufacturer, this would create
a situation where the user/hacker cannot fix bugs on his own machine,
despite having full access to the source and in principle being able to
fix it. After installing the fixed software on the device it will stop
working.
Of course, a benevolent way of using this is to just check whether a
manufacturer supplied kernel is used for warranty reasons, but I suppose
some manufacturers will choose the simple option of not letting any other
software run on the device.
I suppose I'm not a blue eyed optimist (or brown eyed in my case), I can
see this being a real scenario :-(
Another way to fix this in GPLv3 would probably be to require the hardware
and firmware to allow the modified software to remain functional after
modification (barring newly introduced bugs).
Having said all this, GPLv2 is still a pretty good license, but it seems
there could be a real need for further reducing the likelyhood of (free)
software being locked up by DRM or (software) patents.
Cheers
Simon
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Al Viro wrote:
>
>>Bzzert. "GPLv2 only in the context of the Linux kernel" is incompatible
>>with GPLv2 and means that resulting kernel is impossible to distribute.
>
>
> Indeed. The GPL (both v2 and v3) disallow restricting usage.
>
> So certain _code_ can be either v2 or v3 only, but you can't make that
> decision based on how the code is used.
>
> So you can't license, for example, your code "udner the GPL only for the
> Linux kernel". Trust me, some companies have actually wanted to do exactly
> that - they wanted to distribute their code, but _only_ for the kernel
> (and you'd not be allowed to use it for any other GPL'd project). That
> just cannot fly. It's either GPL, or it isn't. There's no "GPL with the
> following rules".
Not really the same case, but ...
/*
* linux/init/version.c
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 Theodore Ts'o
*
* May be freely distributed as part of Linux.
*/
ciao
cate
Thomas Horsten wrote:
> That would be a dubious circumvention. Remember that the GPLv3 is still a
> draft - the wording can (and should probably) be improved to make it clear
> that the system as a whole must behave identically if a modified version
> of the GPL'ed software is used.
As a software license, GPLv3 can dictate the usage rules for software
distributed under it, but it can't dictate the usage terms of hardware
and software independently developed (ex.: DRM'ed hardware and
proprietary user-space applications). No wording could erase that.
And what is suggest is not "circumvention", it's just not something
GPLv3 could cover.
> It's a good place to start putting pressure on the OEM's. If they can
> choose between heavy DRM'ed and closed hardware, and pay millions in
> license fees, or get the software they need for free in return for
> dropping the restrictions, some are bound to choose the free route. This
> is where the fight begins.
DRM is a symptom, not the root problem. The root problem is that someone
somewhere has been convinced that they are loosing money because of
"pirates". Sure, middle-men (record labels) have crafted the reality to
fit their needs. But the latter would not be able to operate would the
former not exist. There's only one thing "artists" will dislike more than
the fear of not making money: it's actually not making any. So if you
want to get rid of DRM, the solution is to not buy any DRM'ed stuff.
Every time you buy a region-coded DVD or a "protected" CD you are
feeding the DRM cycle. To stop it, just don't buy any of it.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
On 1/30/06, Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thomas Horsten wrote:
> > That would be a dubious circumvention. Remember that the GPLv3 is still a
> > draft - the wording can (and should probably) be improved to make it clear
> > that the system as a whole must behave identically if a modified version
> > of the GPL'ed software is used.
>
> As a software license, GPLv3 can dictate the usage rules for software
> distributed under it, but it can't dictate the usage terms of hardware
> and software independently developed (ex.: DRM'ed hardware and
> proprietary user-space applications). No wording could erase that.
> And what is suggest is not "circumvention", it's just not something
> GPLv3 could cover.
I may be missing the point here, (In case you're more than welcome to
correct me), but ... Why? Can't a software license restrict the usage
of the software? In which ways do you think the sentence "Don't use in
DRM'ed hardware" differs from sentences like "Not allowed in country
X", "Don't use for commercial purposes", and other alikes ? I think
that saying in which hardware your software can or cannot run is a
pretty valid license term (without messing with the question about it
being the right thing to do here).
Besides that, I pretty much agree with the rest of your mail.
--
Free Software : Technology for a better world
=============================
Glauber de Oliveira Costa
jabber: [email protected]
=============================
Дана Monday 30 January 2006 20:43, Glauber de Oliveira Costa је написао(ла):
> On 1/30/06, Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As a software license, GPLv3 can dictate the usage rules for software
> > distributed under it, but it can't dictate the usage terms of hardware
> > and software independently developed (ex.: DRM'ed hardware and
> > proprietary user-space applications). No wording could erase that.
> > And what is suggest is not "circumvention", it's just not something
> > GPLv3 could cover.
>
> I may be missing the point here, (In case you're more than welcome to
> correct me), but ... Why? Can't a software license restrict the usage
> of the software? In which ways do you think the sentence "Don't use in
> DRM'ed hardware" differs from sentences like "Not allowed in country
> X", "Don't use for commercial purposes", and other alikes ?
"Don't use in DRM'ed hardware" and "Don't use for commercial purposes" do
differ from "Not allowed in country X". The first two are essentially the
same (as far as I am aware, DRM has no use for F/OSS, it is made for
commercial stuff). They protect the freedom of the software. The third
(!country) is something different since it attacks the freedom of the
software. Equivalents (or similar thoughts) would be "Don't use in DRM'ed
hardware", "Don't use for commercial purposes" and "Use in any country you
want".
> I think
> that saying in which hardware your software can or cannot run is a
> pretty valid license term (without messing with the question about it
> being the right thing to do here).
I agree that it is a valid term. I wouldn't like to see my program running on
some obscure DRM'ed hardware when I made it to be free.
As far as I can see, Linus wants to allow usage of Linux in DRM'ed hardware
(for ex. future mobile phones). He wants to allow usage, but he hopes that
the customers would make companies disband DRM (and similar
crypto/obscure/... stuff). If that is the case, I don't agree with his
oppinion that the customers could do anything. Most of the "customers" have
no problem with DRM, and look-a-likes. Most of the customers still use m$ win
and office, and others think that os x is an free/open operating system.
> Besides that, I pretty much agree with the rest of your mail.
I do too, but I don't think that "To stop it, just don't buy any of it." is
the solution of the problem. It would be a solution if most of the customers
would do so.
--
Filip Brcic <[email protected]>
WWWeb: http://purl.org/NET/brcha/home/
Jabber: [email protected]
Jabber: [email protected]
Jabber: [email protected]
ICQ# 40994923
Yahoo! brcha
MSN: [email protected]
> Not really the same case, but ...
>
> /*
> * linux/init/version.c
> *
> * Copyright (C) 1992 Theodore Ts'o
> *
> * May be freely distributed as part of Linux.
> */
That should be fixed. If the author didn't intend to release this under
GPLv2, it should be replaced. If he did, it should be clarified.
Actually, we have 13 years of use. And I think Ted knows that the kernel is
under GPLv2. ;)
You can't include something with the Linux kernel if it's not under GPLv2.
And you can't put additional restrictions on GPLv2 code. We all know that, I
think.
DS
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> I may be missing the point here, (In case you're more than welcome to
> correct me), but ... Why? Can't a software license restrict the usage
> of the software? In which ways do you think the sentence "Don't use in
> DRM'ed hardware" differs from sentences like "Not allowed in country
> X", "Don't use for commercial purposes", and other alikes ? I think
> that saying in which hardware your software can or cannot run is a
> pretty valid license term (without messing with the question about it
> being the right thing to do here).
You're right, I didn't think it through properly ... I guess what I'm
trying to say is that the more restrictions a licensed work imposes
on its runtime environment, the less free it is. In my view of freedom,
a "free" license should indeed protect the software licensed under it,
but it should be as unintrussive with regards to runtime as possible
-- simply because the original author may not have anticipated all the
possible runtime scenarios. As a user, I should be free to decide what
hardware I'd like to see this software run on. In that regard, I think
GPLv2 strikes the right balance, while GPLv3 attempts to solve one
issue by introducing a lot of other problems.
... and bearing in mind that there are legitimate non-DRM embedded and
security applications where runtime software restrictions are required/
inherent ... think:
- software controlling consumer appliances such as cars, etc.
- masked-ROM software (non-flashable)
- access-control hardware
- high-end IT security
- etc.
FWIW, private discussions with RMS a few years back showed a clear
misunderstanding of how important embedded devices are. It really
seems to me that the FSF's newly found urgency for solving an
increasingly disturbing problem (DRM) is unfortunately not based on
internal familiarity with the embedded world. Contrary to the FSF's
long-standing experience of having its software used in workstations
and servers, it's only very recently that its software, and software
licensed under licenses it publishes, has been found in embedded
devices -- Though GCC & co have been used to cross-build for embedded
devices for a very long time, this is different from having the
actual software run on the gizmo.
This argument, in itself, doesn't diminish the value of the FSF's
position. They are indeed intent on defending software freedom and
in that I cannot condem them. However, I really think that those
championing this new wording should think through all the
possibilities. As a user, I clearly hate DRM and would indeed like
to see it disappear. As a developer, and an active participant in
the development of many kinds of embedded/customized systems, I
also see that the new wording imposes unrealistic limitations to
legitimate designs. IOW: right cause, wrong venue.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
Filip Brcic wrote:
> I do too, but I don't think that "To stop it, just don't buy any of it." is
> the solution of the problem. It would be a solution if most of the customers
> would do so.
Exactly. And this may indeed be a case where the non-techies have decided
for the techies. The tech community (or part of it in this case) cannot
change the world. It can certainly act as a catalyst, and boy has free
software been such a catalyst, but there are other forces at play here,
including consumers who not care about DRM and those that even understand/
accommodate it. Even if licenses prohibited the use of FLOSS in DRM'ed
hardware: where there's a need, there's demand, and where'd demand, there's
supply. IOW, we will continue seeing DRM'ed hardware for the foreseeable
future, and there's nothing any techie (or software license) can do about
it. So, I have to question myself with regards to what use it is to
encumber a successful license with draconian runtime restrictions when
said restrictions will not solve anything anytime in the future --
especially as said restrictions will not effectively block the use of
DRM hardware and corresponding user-space applications as I explained
earlier.
DRM is something worth fighting, but we need something that attacks the
root problem, not its symptoms. In comparison, GPLv2 was indeed
successful in that it attacked the root problem of software distribution
freedom. How it may leverage that by introducing restrictions on symptoms
of another problem still evades me.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
>
> DRM is something worth fighting, but we need something that attacks the
> root problem, not its symptoms. In comparison, GPLv2 was indeed
> successful in that it attacked the root problem of software distribution
> freedom. How it may leverage that by introducing restrictions on symptoms
> of another problem still evades me.
Side note: the reason GPLv2 is so successful at fighting the root problem
of using copyright to fight restrictive copyrights is that it makes
"interesting material" available under a license that forbids further
restricting it.
I would suggest that anybody who wants to fight DRM practices seriously
look at the equivalent angle. If you create interesting content, you can
forbid that _content_ to ever be encrypted or limited.
In other words, I personally think that the anti-DRM clause is much more
sensible in the context of the Creative Commons licenses, than in software
licenses. If you create valuable and useful content that other people want
to be able to use (catchy tunes, funny animation, good icons), I would
suggest you protect that _content_ by saying that it cannot be used in any
content-protection schemes.
Afaik, all the Creative Commons licenses already require that you can't
use technological measures to restrict the rigts you give with the CC
licenses. The "Share Alike" license in particular requires all work based
on it to also be shared alike, ie it has the "GPL feel" to it.
If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes
marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that's really no different at all
from how the GPL works. The GPL has taken decades, and it hasn't
"marginalized" commercial proprietary software yet, but it's gotten to the
point where fewer people at least _worry_ about it.
As long as you expect Disney to feed your brain and just sit there on your
couch, Disney & co will always be able to control the content you see. DRM
is the smallest part of it - the crap we see and hear every day
(regardless of any protection) is a much bigger issue.
The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content). So the
GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is
concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to
create non-software content, and fight it _there_.
I realize that programmers are bad at content creation. So many
programmers feel that they can't fight DRM that way. Tough. Spread the
word instead. Don't try to fight DRM the wrong way.
Linus
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes
> marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that's really no different at all
> from how the GPL works. The GPL has taken decades, and it hasn't
> "marginalized" commercial proprietary software yet, but it's gotten to the
> point where fewer people at least _worry_ about it.
...
> The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content). So the
> GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is
> concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to
> create non-software content, and fight it _there_.
>
> I realize that programmers are bad at content creation. So many
> programmers feel that they can't fight DRM that way. Tough. Spread the
> word instead. Don't try to fight DRM the wrong way.
Bullseye.
It dawned on me after sending earlier emails that I should've mentioned the
responsibility of content creators, but I'm glad I didn't, you've summed
it up quite eloquently.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
On Mer, 2006-02-01 at 14:31 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I realize that programmers are bad at content creation. So many
> programmers feel that they can't fight DRM that way. Tough. Spread the
> word instead. Don't try to fight DRM the wrong way.
Programmers tend to be interested in economics for some strange reason.
So read the analyses on DRM. Then stop worrying about the content
companies because they are the losers to the computer industry on this..
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content). So the
> GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is
> concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to
> create non-software content, and fight it _there_.
>
The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also being
able to change it. Being able to freely study the code is only half of
the beauty of the GPL. The other half, being able to change it, can be
very effectively stopped using DRM.
I agree with your position that the GPL should not be used to prevent
implementing a DRM system, but I like the fact that it's trying to
prevent DRM:ing the code itself (e.g. requiring signed binaries to run).
The effect would probably be that no one can implement a DRM system that
isn't easily broken, but that only demonstrates how flawed the idea of
DRM is.
Rgds
Pierre
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
> The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also being able
> to change it. Being able to freely study the code is only half of the beauty
> of the GPL. The other half, being able to change it, can be very effectively
> stopped using DRM.
No it cannot.
Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes on
somebody elses hardware. But it in no way changes the fact that you got
all the source code, and you can make changes (and use their changes) to
it. That requirement has always been there, even with plain GPLv2. You
have the source.
The difference? The hardware may only run signed kernels. The fact that
the hardware is closed is a _hardware_ license issue. Not a software
license issue. I'd suggest you take it up with your hardware vendor, and
quite possibly just decide to not buy the hardware. Vote with your feet.
Join the OpenCores groups. Make your own FPGA's.
And it's important to realize that signed kernels that you can't run in
modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad idea in many
cases.
For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are
distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having their
kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a "secure policy") or
marking the resulting kernel as "Tainted" (under a "less secure" policy)
is a GOOD THING.
Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would
have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own
versions of the modules they recompile, in order to re-create their own
versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat creates. That's INSANE.
Btw, what about signed RPM archives? How well do you think a secure
auto-updater would work if it cannot trust digital signatures?
I think a lot of people may find that the GPLv3 "anti-DRM" measures aren't
all that wonderful after all.
Because digital signatures and cryptography aren't just "bad DRM". They
very much are "good security" too.
Babies and bathwater..
Linus
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>
>> The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also being able
>> to change it. Being able to freely study the code is only half of the beauty
>> of the GPL. The other half, being able to change it, can be very effectively
>> stopped using DRM.
>
> No it cannot.
1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
protect copyright.
3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
module) or you can be sued under the DMCA, for circumventing an
effective technological measure. It doesn't matter in what
hardware are you going to run such kernel. The DMCA implicitly
imposes an additional restriction to the GPL, but as the
restriction is not imposed directly by the copyright owner, but by
the law, it's OK as far the GPL is concerned.
Regards,
Emilio
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
>> The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also being able
>> to change it. Being able to freely study the code is only half of the beauty
>> of the GPL. The other half, being able to change it, can be very effectively
>> stopped using DRM.
>>
>
> No it cannot.
>
> Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes on
> somebody elses hardware. But it in no way changes the fact that you got
>
I don't consider things I've bought to be somebody elses hardware. The
whole attitude of the big manufacturer that kindly gives me permission
to use their product only how they see fit is very disgusting to me.
> The difference? The hardware may only run signed kernels. The fact that
> the hardware is closed is a _hardware_ license issue. Not a software
> license issue. I'd suggest you take it up with your hardware vendor, and
> quite possibly just decide to not buy the hardware. Vote with your feet.
> Join the OpenCores groups. Make your own FPGA's.
>
I'm concerned that in a few years time such systems will be rare and
hard to come by (possibly even illegal). I find such system pissing all
over the spirit of the GPL. To me, the GPL has always been about the
freedom of modifying (in place, not making a clone).
It's a fine line before we are in the territory of restricting what
software can be used for. But for me this is not about restricting their
rights as much as it is preventing them from restricting mine.
> And it's important to realize that signed kernels that you can't run in
> modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad idea in many
> cases.
>
> For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are
> distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having their
> kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a "secure policy") or
> marking the resulting kernel as "Tainted" (under a "less secure" policy)
> is a GOOD THING.
>
I dislike the former but the latter is acceptable (and, as you say, in
some cases desirable). There is a big difference between refusing to run
and printing/logging warnings.
> Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat would
> have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign their own
> versions of the modules they recompile, in order to re-create their own
> versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat creates. That's INSANE.
>
> Btw, what about signed RPM archives? How well do you think a secure
> auto-updater would work if it cannot trust digital signatures?
>
>
I'm arguing the principle here, not the wording of the current draft.
Signatures that are required for execution should be covered, those that
result in warnings should not be. Imagine the shit storm if Red Hat
decided to ship an rpm that didn't allow packages that weren't signed by
them.
It's basically about control. I do not find it reasonable to allow the
vendor control of what goes or not on systems I've bought. They're free
to put systems in place so they can detect that I've fiddled with it so
they can deny me support. But if they want to make a completely closed
system then they'll have to develop it on their own and not use my code.
"Look but don't touch" is not sufficient for me.
Rgds
Pierre
Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>
>>On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also being able
>>>to change it. Being able to freely study the code is only half of the beauty
>>>of the GPL. The other half, being able to change it, can be very effectively
>>>stopped using DRM.
>>>
>>>
>>No it cannot.
>>
>>
>
>1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
>
>2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
> protect copyright.
>
>3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
> module) or you can be sued under the DMCA, for circumventing an
> effective technological measure. It doesn't matter in what
> hardware are you going to run such kernel. The DMCA implicitly
> imposes an additional restriction to the GPL, but as the
> restriction is not imposed directly by the copyright owner, but by
> the law, it's OK as far the GPL is concerned.
>
>
This can't legally happen. Do the DMCA prevent "circumventing"
even when you have the legal right to make copies of the content?
(If so, then the music industry breaks DMCA when manufacturing
their protected CDs from a protected master . . .)
If so, then step (1) is illegal because it breaks with the GPL.
Remember, when you distribute something under the GPL, you cannot
impose restrictions. It is well established that you can't link in
something with a more restrictive commercial licence, for example.
I think adding that DRM falls in the same trap - if the DMCA really
impose this additional restriction (because DRM-breaking is illegal
even when content copying is not) then you are not allowed to
add that restriction.
Someone distributing DRM-protected kernels are breaking
copyrigth law then, if the DMCA is so strict.
Helge Hafting
Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>...
> 1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
>
> 2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
> protect copyright.
You forgot:
2.5- Due to the DMCA, the code now has an additional restriction on
top of what is already in its license, the GPL v2. The GPL v2
forbids additional restrictions, and thus the resulting work
cannot be distributed.
> 3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
> module) or you can be sued under the DMCA, for circumventing an
> effective technological measure. It doesn't matter in what
> hardware are you going to run such kernel. The DMCA implicitly
> imposes an additional restriction to the GPL, but as the
> restriction is not imposed directly by the copyright owner, but by
> the law, it's OK as far the GPL is concerned.
If the DRM author(s) are the ones claiming the DRM is an "effective
technological measure", then they are the ones imposing an additional
restriction. Those authors are the ones who can be sued, not the end
users of the kernel+DRM. If someone else makes the claim, it carries no
weight at all, because they are not the author or copyright owner.
Also, remember that the GPL is about DISTRIBUTION only. You are always
free to modify whatever you want. So your #3 is just plain wrong, as
you still can modify the kernel. What you can't do is distribute that
modified version, although that's a meaningless since #2.5 shows you
couldn't distribute the unmodified version anyway.
The modification vs. distribution point cannot be emphasized enough, as
far too many people miss this important distinction when thinking about
the GPL. Nothing in GPL software becomes magically illegal at any
point; The only thing that can be legal or not is distribution. I am
free to mix Linux, Open Solaris, GCC, and BSD code with the advertising
clause, and top it off with GNU FDL docs, and do so to my hearts'
content. The only thing I *can't* do with that abomination is
distribute it.
- Jim Bruce
James Bruce <[email protected]> writes:
> Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>> ... 1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
>> 2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
>> protect copyright.
>
> You forgot:
>
> 2.5- Due to the DMCA, the code now has an additional restriction on
> top of what is already in its license, the GPL v2. The GPL v2
> forbids additional restrictions, and thus the resulting work
> cannot be distributed.
Ok, so to add DRM to GPLed software, the copyright holder has to state
that the DMCA does not apply to such software? Or does the GPL state
that?
Quoting the GPL:
6.- [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein. [...]
The point is that it is not the copyright holder who is imposing the
restrictions, is the law. For example, the law may impose some export
restrictions, would that void the GPL?
>> 3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
^^^^^^
I meant modify and distribute, sorry.
>> [...]
>
> If the DRM author(s) are the ones claiming the DRM is an "effective
> technological measure", then they are the ones imposing an additional
They are only a claiming, not restricting. The restriction would come
from the law when a judge decides that the code in question is an
"effective technological measure".
> restriction. Those authors are the ones who can be sued, not the end
> users of the kernel+DRM. If someone else makes the claim, it carries
Ok, I mean a user who tries to exercise all the rights stated in the
GPL, including distribution of the modified code.
> no weight at all, because they are not the author or copyright owner.
Regards,
Emilio
> 1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
>
> 2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
> protect copyright.
>
> 3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
> module) or you can be sued under the DMCA, for circumventing an
> effective technological measure. It doesn't matter in what
> hardware are you going to run such kernel. The DMCA implicitly
> imposes an additional restriction to the GPL, but as the
> restriction is not imposed directly by the copyright owner, but by
> the law, it's OK as far the GPL is concerned.
You can't do that. The restriction is not imposed by the law, it's imposed
by the the copyright owner the instant he added an effective technological
measure to protect copyright to the GPL'd code.
GPLv2 code *cannot* contain any license or copyright enforcement
mechanisms. It can contain code that appears to be such a thing only
provided that the legal position is not that it's such a thing.
For example, you can make a kernel that will refuse to load kernel modules
that aren't licensed under the GPL. But you cannot prevent anyone from
removing that logic if they want to.
*If* you add a license enforcement mechanism to some code or *you* declare
that existing code is such a mechanism, then *you* are imposing the
additional restrictions.
The idea of it being imposed "directly by the copyright owner" is just
something you made up. The GPL does not distinguish between direct and
indirect impositions. In fact, it goes out of its way to make it impossible
to indirectly impose additional conditions. See, for example, section 7.
> The point is that it is not the copyright holder who is imposing the
> restrictions, is the law. For example, the law may impose some export
> restrictions, would that void the GPL?
Again, see section 6. If you cannot allow unrestricted modification, then
you cannot comply with the GPL. If you cannot comply with the GPL, then you
do not get the rights the GPL might give you. If you need the GPL to give
you the right to distribute, and you cannot comply with the GPL (even though
it's through no fault of your own), then you cannot distribute.
DS
Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>James Bruce <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>
>>Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... 1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
>>>2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
>>> protect copyright.
>>>
>>>
>>You forgot:
>>
>>2.5- Due to the DMCA, the code now has an additional restriction on
>> top of what is already in its license, the GPL v2. The GPL v2
>> forbids additional restrictions, and thus the resulting work
>> cannot be distributed.
>>
>>
>
>Ok, so to add DRM to GPLed software, the copyright holder has to state
>that the DMCA does not apply to such software? Or does the GPL state
>that?
>
>
This isn't only about DRM protecting your distributed kernel.
Lets say you want to make a linux-driven home entertainment
device. And you add DRM - not to protect the kernel you don't
really care about, but in order to use protected content in a
restricted fashion. Perhaps your business also sell DVDs.
Saying that the DRM doesn't apply to the kernel itself won't
help. Users may, in this case, want to alter the DRM so it
doesn't restrict their use of Cds, DVDs etc. That however
breaks with the DMCA - even if you allow unrestricted source
code modifications. So you cannot legally distribute a kernel
with DRM - because DRM comes with a "no tampering" law
which don't work with the GPL. Businesses can still add
DRM stuff in a proprietary userland app though.
The fact that DMCA law is a restriction imposed by
government rather than the distributor makes no difference.
The distributor implicitly imposes restrictions by linking in DRM sw, just
as the distributor would implicitly impose some restrictions by
linking a proprietary-licenced object into the kernel.
Helge Hafting
>Quoting the GPL:
>
>6.- [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein. [...]
>
>The point is that it is not the copyright holder who is imposing the
>restrictions, is the law. For example, the law may impose some export
>restrictions, would that void the GPL?
>
>
>
>>>3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
>>>
>>>
> ^^^^^^
>I meant modify and distribute, sorry.
>
>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>If the DRM author(s) are the ones claiming the DRM is an "effective
>>technological measure", then they are the ones imposing an additional
>>
>>
>
>They are only a claiming, not restricting. The restriction would come
>from the law when a judge decides that the code in question is an
>"effective technological measure".
>
>
>>restriction. Those authors are the ones who can be sued, not the end
>>users of the kernel+DRM. If someone else makes the claim, it carries
>>
>>
>Ok, I mean a user who tries to exercise all the rights stated in the
>GPL, including distribution of the modified code.
>
>
>>no weight at all, because they are not the author or copyright owner.
>>
>>
>
>Regards,
>
>Emilio
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
On Iau, 2006-02-02 at 01:00 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes on
> somebody elses hardware.
Last time I checked the Xbox was owned by the person who bought it. Xbox
Linux hits this problem today. So it may affect "your hardware" too
unless you make hardware, which is an unusual and privileged position.
That isn't to say the GPLv3 approach is neccessarily a solution at all.
On Thursday 02 February 2006 04:37, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>> The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also
>>> being able to change it. Being able to freely study the code is
>>> only half of the beauty of the GPL. The other half, being able to
>>> change it, can be very effectively stopped using DRM.
>>
>> No it cannot.
>>
>> Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes
>> on somebody elses hardware. But it in no way changes the fact that
>> you got
>
>I don't consider things I've bought to be somebody elses hardware. The
>whole attitude of the big manufacturer that kindly gives me permission
>to use their product only how they see fit is very disgusting to me.
>
>> The difference? The hardware may only run signed kernels. The fact
>> that the hardware is closed is a _hardware_ license issue. Not a
>> software license issue. I'd suggest you take it up with your
>> hardware vendor, and quite possibly just decide to not buy the
>> hardware. Vote with your feet. Join the OpenCores groups. Make your
>> own FPGA's.
>
>I'm concerned that in a few years time such systems will be rare and
>hard to come by (possibly even illegal). I find such system pissing
> all over the spirit of the GPL.
And I too see this scenario developing as the years go by, prodded to
keep it in motion at every twitch of a muscle to do other wise by the
likes of M$ because it cements the last brick into his domination of
the world scene. It scares me bad enough to keep my powder dry & in
good supply if you get my drift. DRM-less hardware will vanish from
the supply chain unless smuggled in from au or nz. And I do mean
smuggled, with severe penalties for being caught at it.
> To me, the GPL has always been about
> the freedom of modifying (in place, not making a clone).
>
>It's a fine line before we are in the territory of restricting what
>software can be used for. But for me this is not about restricting
> their rights as much as it is preventing them from restricting mine.
>
Right on.
>> And it's important to realize that signed kernels that you can't run
>> in modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad
>> idea in many cases.
>>
>> For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are
>> distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having
>> their kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a "secure
>> policy") or marking the resulting kernel as "Tainted" (under a "less
>> secure" policy) is a GOOD THING.
>
>I dislike the former but the latter is acceptable (and, as you say, in
>some cases desirable). There is a big difference between refusing to
> run and printing/logging warnings.
>
>> Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat
>> would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign
>> their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to
>> re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat
>> creates. That's INSANE.
Where are the guys in the white jackets when we need them?
>> Btw, what about signed RPM archives? How well do you think a secure
>> auto-updater would work if it cannot trust digital signatures?
>
>I'm arguing the principle here, not the wording of the current draft.
>Signatures that are required for execution should be covered, those
> that result in warnings should not be. Imagine the shit storm if Red
> Hat decided to ship an rpm that didn't allow packages that weren't
> signed by them.
>
>It's basically about control. I do not find it reasonable to allow the
>vendor control of what goes or not on systems I've bought. They're
> free to put systems in place so they can detect that I've fiddled
> with it so they can deny me support. But if they want to make a
> completely closed system then they'll have to develop it on their own
> and not use my code. "Look but don't touch" is not sufficient for me.
Amen. And on that point, we need a better method to detect that they
have 'borrowed' FOSS code, and an expensive lawsuit settled in FOSS
favor to set an enforcement example, but I have no imagination of a
method they couldn't just as easily remove IF they had a coder worthy
of the name of coder who wanted to be so larsonous.
>Rgds
>Pierre
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>
> 1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL.
>
> 2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to
> protect copyright.
>
> 3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM
> module) or you can be sued under the DMCA, for circumventing an
> effective technological measure.
I don't believe that for a second.
The law is not a mindless computer that just follows orders. It's
interpreted by human beings.
And the DMCA has been interpreted already in real lawsuits to mean that
"circumvention" is not "anything you say is circumvention". See the
decision on garage door openers, for example.
Besides, the people who inserted the DRM code explicitly gave you
permission to modify it, so the whole point is moot. There's no
"circumvention".
The fact is, you can always come up with made-up problems, and try to
solve them. That's what "Throwing out the baby with the bath-water"
_means_ for christ sake! Using a solution that has _known_ problems
(GPLv3) for a problem that you made up and don't even know it's real.
In engineering, it's called over-desiging, and it's stupid. In law, it's
called "billable hours", and it's encouraged.
Linus
Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:
>Umm, the interesting question here if what happens in countries that
>haven't implemented the DMCA.
>
>
In such countries, linking in DRM will be okay. Because then no law
prevents others from removing the DRM at will. Of course distributing
such a kernel to the U.S. or other DMCA countries won't be possible.
Helge Hafting
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Iau, 2006-02-02 at 01:00 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes on
> > somebody elses hardware.
>
> Last time I checked the Xbox was owned by the person who bought it. Xbox
> Linux hits this problem today. So it may affect "your hardware" too
> unless you make hardware, which is an unusual and privileged position.
Ok, now replace "hardware" by "software", and replace DRM by
"proprietary", and what's the difference?
The fact is, if you buy proprietary software, you cannot make it do
everything you want, regardless of of whether you "own" it or not. The
creator of the software may have designed it so that it only does certain
things.
Tough. The solution: use open source software.
The same holds true for hardware. If you buy proprietary hardware, you
cannot make it do everything you want, whether you "own" it or not. The
manufacturer of the hardware may have designed it so that it only does
certain things.
Tough. The solution: use open hardware.
The solution is NOT to create a software license that is obviously not
usable. And the GPLv3 really _is_ obviously not usable for the kernel,
because it creates insane situations whether the hardware is open or
closed.
In other words, the problem you state is a problem. But it has nothing to
do with the GPLv3.
Linus
Helge Hafting <[email protected]> writes:
> [...]
> This isn't only about DRM protecting your distributed kernel.
> Lets say you want to make a linux-driven home entertainment
> device. And you add DRM - not to protect the kernel you don't
> really care about, but in order to use protected content in a
> restricted fashion. Perhaps your business also sell DVDs.
Yes, I was thinking about this situation, not talking about DRMing the
kernel.
I thought that this case wasn't already covered by the GPLv2, and was
one of the points addressed in the GPLv3.
> [...]
> The fact that DMCA law is a restriction imposed by
> government rather than the distributor makes no difference.
> The distributor implicitly imposes restrictions by linking in DRM sw, just
> as the distributor would implicitly impose some restrictions by
> linking a proprietary-licenced object into the kernel.
Umm, the interesting question here if what happens in countries that
haven't implemented the DMCA.
So it seems that this is kinda offtopic for l-k.
Thanks,
Emilio
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>
>> On Iau, 2006-02-02 at 01:00 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes on
>>> somebody elses hardware.
>>>
>> Last time I checked the Xbox was owned by the person who bought it. Xbox
>> Linux hits this problem today. So it may affect "your hardware" too
>> unless you make hardware, which is an unusual and privileged position.
>>
>
> Ok, now replace "hardware" by "software", and replace DRM by
> "proprietary", and what's the difference?
>
> The fact is, if you buy proprietary software, you cannot make it do
> everything you want, regardless of of whether you "own" it or not. The
> creator of the software may have designed it so that it only does certain
> things.
>
> Tough. The solution: use open source software.
>
> The same holds true for hardware. If you buy proprietary hardware, you
> cannot make it do everything you want, whether you "own" it or not. The
> manufacturer of the hardware may have designed it so that it only does
> certain things.
>
> Tough. The solution: use open hardware.
>
>
So taking open software and closed hardware and combining it into
something that I cannot modify is ok by you? But since you support GPLv2
I take it you do not find it ok to take open software and closed
software and combine that into something that I cannot modify.
Personally, I consider both equal violations of the rights I seek to
protect when I license my code under the GPL.
> The solution is NOT to create a software license that is obviously not
> usable. And the GPLv3 really _is_ obviously not usable for the kernel,
> because it creates insane situations whether the hardware is open or
> closed.
>
Just to make things clear, are you only having problems with the risk of
forcing everyone to hand out their signing keys, or are you also opposed
to preventing the hardware scenario above (provided it could be done
without side-effects)?
Rgds
Pierre
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
> Besides, the people who inserted the DRM code explicitly gave you
> permission to modify it, so the whole point is moot. There's no
> "circumvention".
Yes, it is mostly clear, and indeed GPL3 seems a little bit over
engineered, but that doesn't mean that GPL2 could not have any
loopholes:
1. Release a kernel with builtin DRM for video. (For example HDCP [1])
Such DRM implementation is released under the GPL2 by copyright
holder A.
2. Distribute a modified kernel without DRM. Copyright holder A gave
you permission to do so, by the GPL2, everything is OK.
3. People can backup videos from copyright holder B using the modified
kernel.
4. Copyright holder B can sue you under the DMCA, for circumventing an
effective technological measure. It doesn't matter whatever license
copyright holder A gave you.
Regards,
Emilio
Footnotes:
[1] High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection. Currently you would
never get a license for a GPL implementation, but it's used as an
hypothetical example.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
> So taking open software and closed hardware and combining it into something
> that I cannot modify is ok by you?
But you CAN modify the software part of it. You can run it on other
hardware.
It boils down to this: we wrote the software. That's the only part _I_
care about, and perhaps (at least to me) more importantly, because it's
the only part we created, it's the only part that I feel we have a moral
right to control.
I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the
moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not
crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are
trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.
That's my standpoint, at least. Always has been. It's the reason I
chose the GPL in the first place (and it's the exact same reason that I
wrote the original Linux copyright license). I do _software_, and I
license _software_.
And I realize that others don't always agree with me. That's fine. You
don't have to. But I licensed my project under a license _I_ agreed with,
which is the GPLv2. Others who feel differently can license under their
own licenses. Including, very much, the GPLv3.
I'm not arguing against the GPLv3.
I'm arguing that the GPLv3 is wrong for _me_, and it's not the license I
ever chose.
Linus
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the
> moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not
> crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are
> trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.
>
>
Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all,
forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work.
Rgds
Pierre
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:54:47PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all,
> forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work.
The GPL enforced the view on free software, the BSD license does not.
The BSD license lets you do whatever you want pretty much.
If you want to make money from linux, you can do so by being better than
other people at solving problems and making enhancements. With BSD all
it takes is keeping secrets. So if you are very good at what you do,
you will be perfectly happy dealing with GPL code and making money
writing enhancements for people, while if you aren't very good, you
could just go write some software using BSD licensed code and sell that,
preferably taking out a software patent while you are at it to prevent
someone else from writing another implementation.
Len Sorensen
On 2/2/06, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
All this boils down to is a linking argument. Nvidia releases closed
sorce drivers that link to the kernel as a module. Many kernel users
have nvidia cards or even ati cards. Under GPLv3 at first glance
these will have to be implemented without the kernel linking that
gives them their good performance. Same for DVDs and other Media with
DRM or other copyright measures. Free Software cannot include the
tools to view this content as GPL in any circumstance and any argument
to the contrary is baseless.
Copyright law has many issues and the GPL cannot address this by
limiting the functionality of GPL projects. IMHO the fact that I buy
a HDVD or Blu-Ray disk with protected content presumes an agreement to
the specifications and I must abide by the restrictions set by the
manufacturer whether it be a big company or a small firm releasing the
content in that format. This cannot be onforced in a free software
environment if the ability to break the restrictions is built-in, the
GPL cannot be compatible, that is why closed operating systems like
Windows and MacOS and the BSDs continue to dominate the marketplace.
Linux may well erode the server market that serves up and produces the
content that ends up being protected, but the end user will not in the
forseeable future be able to use the Open Source Mavement to view such
materials as long as the "percieved" ability to override the
protection is present. Just an average joes perspective. I
personally don't want linux to adopt a new liscence regardless of the
reasons. New does not always mean better and just because the GPL
leaves the choice of version up to the inventor does not make the
whole concept fluff. You can't really argue in common sense that the
Section 9 language gives future versions of the GPL the ability to
take over the definitively stated version provided by the grantee.
Thankyou.
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> >
> > So taking open software and closed hardware and combining it into something
> > that I cannot modify is ok by you?
>
> But you CAN modify the software part of it. You can run it on other
> hardware.
>
> It boils down to this: we wrote the software. That's the only part _I_
> care about, and perhaps (at least to me) more importantly, because it's
> the only part we created, it's the only part that I feel we have a moral
> right to control.
>
> I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the
> moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not
> crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are
> trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.
>
> That's my standpoint, at least. Always has been. It's the reason I
> chose the GPL in the first place (and it's the exact same reason that I
> wrote the original Linux copyright license). I do _software_, and I
> license _software_.
>
> And I realize that others don't always agree with me. That's fine. You
> don't have to. But I licensed my project under a license _I_ agreed with,
> which is the GPLv2. Others who feel differently can license under their
> own licenses. Including, very much, the GPLv3.
>
> I'm not arguing against the GPLv3.
>
> I'm arguing that the GPLv3 is wrong for _me_, and it's not the license I
> ever chose.
>
> Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:54:47PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
>> Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all,
>> forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work.
>>
>
> The GPL enforced the view on free software, the BSD license does not.
> The BSD license lets you do whatever you want pretty much.
>
>
I am aware of the difference between GPL and BSD. My point was that if
Linus feels that we should not enforce our rules on others then why does
he prefer a license that does just that? If people will come around just
by seeing how well the community works then BSD should be sufficient, or
even public domain.
I don't share this view, which is why I like the DRM ideas in GPLv3
which close something I see as a loophole in GPLv2.
Rgds
Pierre
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 12:13 -0600, Ian Kester-Haney wrote:
> On 2/2/06, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> All this boils down to is a linking argument. Nvidia releases closed
> sorce drivers that link to the kernel as a module. Many kernel users
> have nvidia cards or even ati cards. Under GPLv3 at first glance
> these will have to be implemented without the kernel linking that
> gives them their good performance. Same for DVDs and other Media with
> DRM or other copyright measures. Free Software cannot include the
> tools to view this content as GPL in any circumstance and any argument
> to the contrary is baseless.
What nvidia is doing is already illegal under the GPLv2.
Lee
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the
> > moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not
> > crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are
> > trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.
>
> Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all,
> forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work.
Yes, a lot of people see the GPL as a "crusading" license, and I think
that's partly because the FSF really has been acting like a crusader.
But I think that one of the main reasons Linux has been successful is that
I don't think that the Linux community really is into crusading (some
small parts of it are, but it's not the main reason). I think Linux has
made the GPL more "socially acceptable", by being a hell of a lot less
religious about it than the FSF was.
So to me, the point of the GPL is not the "convert the infidels" logic,
but something totally different:
- "quid pro quo"
This is where I started out. My initial reason for my original license
(which was also "you must make changes available under the same
license") was not crusading, but simple reciprocity. I give out source
code - you can use it if you reciprocate.
In other words, to me, the GPL "give back source" is an issue of
fairness. I don't ask for anything more than I give. I ask for source
code and the ability to incorporate your changes back into _my_ use,
but I don't want to limit _your_ use in any way.
So in my worldview - not as a crusader - the GPLv2 is _fair_. It asks
others to give back exactly what I myself offer: the source code to
play with. I don't ask for control over their other projects (be they
hardware or software), and I don't ask for control over copyrights
(in the kernel, people are _encouraged_ to keep their copyrights,
rather than signing them over to me).
I only ask for exact reciprocity of what I give: the license for me to
freely use the changes to source code that I initiated.
The GPLv3 fundamentally changes that balance, in my opinion. It asks
for more than it gives. It no longer asks for just source back, it asks
for _control_ over whatever system you used the source in.
See? I think the GPLv3 makes _perfect_ sense as a conversion tool. But as
a "please reciprocate in kind" tool, the GPLv2 is better.
Now, my very earliest original license (and the GPLv2) fit my notion of
reciprocity, and as mentioned, that was the reason I _originally_ selected
that over the BSD license. However, over time, having seen how things
evolve, I've come to appreciate another aspect of the GPLv2, which is why
I would never put a project I personally really cared about under the BSD
license:
- encouraging merging
I've come to believe that the BSD license is not a "sustainable"
license, because while it encourages (and allows) forking even more
than the GPL does, it does not encourage merging the forks back.
And I've come to the private conclusion that the real value of a fork
is lost if you don't have the ability to merge back the end result. Not
that all forks should be merged back - most forks are dead ends - but
the firm ability to merge back _if_ it turns out to be something other
than a dead end.
The GPL guarantees you the right to both fork _and_ merge the result
back - equally, and on both sides. That makes it sustainable. In
contrast, the BSD license encourages forking, but also allows for not
merging back, and that means that if the project ever gets to the point
where there are economic or political reasons to diverge, it _will_
eventually diverge, and there is no counter-acting force at all.
Now, not all projects have any economic incentives to diverge: there
are good reasons to stay on one base, and the costs of forking are
bigger than the advantages. So projects like Apache and sendmail have
worked fine - the pain of being different (when you're "just" a network
service) is generally much higher than the gain of differentiation.
But just about anywhere else, the "cohesion" of a BSD-licensed project
is just lower. You'll have somebody make a commercial release of it,
and they'll spend a bit more effort on it, and eventually the original
freely licensed project will become immaterial.
So long-term, I believe that a GPL'd project is stabler. I believe, for
example, that the fact that Wine switched over to the LGPL (which shares a
lot of the cohesion argument) was a very important decision for the
project, and that they would eventually have otherwise become irrelevant
and the commercial users of the BSD-licensed code would have taken over.
But note that my second reason is not why I _began_ using the GPLv2, and
that it's also equally true of the GPLv3 and LGPL.
Anyway, there are other reasons I like the GPLv2. It's a "known entity"
and it's been around for a long time.
In fact, even in -92, when I switched to the GPL, that "known factor" part
was a major secondary reason for switching. I could have tried to just
change my own license - but I felt it was an advantage to be something
that people knew about, and not having to explain it and check it with
lawyers. The fact that the GPLv2 was still "young" back then was nothing
compared to how wet behind the ears my _own_ license was ;)
Linus
Lee Revell wrote:
> What nvidia is doing is already illegal under the GPLv2.
I don't think that's been legally proven.
The question is whether it is a derivative work. If their driver core
(aka the binary blob) is common to all their drivers (across multiple
OS's), it could be argued that the binary blob itself is not a
derivative work. One could almost view it as firmware.
If they ship the binary blob as well as code that interfaces the binary
blob with the kernel, and the end-user compiles the code together and
loads it into the kernel, does that necessarily violate the GPL?
Chris
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 13:11 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > What nvidia is doing is already illegal under the GPLv2.
>
> I don't think that's been legally proven.
>
OK, s/illegal/questionable/ - I don't want to open that can of worms,
this thread is already too long...
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>> I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the
>>> moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not
>>> crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are
>>> trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.
>>>
>> Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all,
>> forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work.
>>
>
> Yes, a lot of people see the GPL as a "crusading" license, and I think
> that's partly because the FSF really has been acting like a crusader.
>
> But I think that one of the main reasons Linux has been successful is that
> I don't think that the Linux community really is into crusading (some
> small parts of it are, but it's not the main reason). I think Linux has
> made the GPL more "socially acceptable", by being a hell of a lot less
> religious about it than the FSF was.
>
> So to me, the point of the GPL is not the "convert the infidels" logic,
> but something totally different:
>
Thank you. I think that completely clarified your position in this.
Personally, I'm more of a "crusader". I don't think it's ok to force
someone into our way of thinking, but when the try to use our work I
feel they have at least a moral obligation to be as open themselves.
Kind of along the lines of the old "Do unto others..."-saying. That also
mean I don't really like bundling proprietary and open software (which I
do for a living so feel free to call me a hypocrite).
This whole DRM:d hardware issue is a bit different though since it seems
to be moving to a point where it cannot be avoided. "Vote with your
wallet" fails when there are so few of us that care about these things.
With they way electronics are packaged nowadays (chip packages that is),
it's getting increasingly difficult to build your own stuff. My fear is
that open source will be something you can only fiddle with on your ten
year old computer from the pre-DRM era.
Rgds
Pierre
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> This whole DRM:d hardware issue is a bit different though since it seems
> to be moving to a point where it cannot be avoided. "Vote with your
> wallet" fails when there are so few of us that care about these things.
> With they way electronics are packaged nowadays (chip packages that is),
> it's getting increasingly difficult to build your own stuff. My fear is
> that open source will be something you can only fiddle with on your ten
> year old computer from the pre-DRM era.
Forgive me, but I don't subscribe to this cataclysmic scenario. The only
reason it's getting increasingly difficult to build your own stuff is
because the chip manufacturers are interested in making money, and to
do that they have to answer market demand, and market demand nowadays
is for gizmos/systems that have an ever-increasing number of features
and ever-increasing performance requirements. Cell phones are a prime
example. So, yes, it would be totally impossible to think today that
any single group of individuals could reproduce the early Apple era,
but that's just life -- things get complicated with time.
As a techie I love tinkering with things, and I'm always on the lookout
for mainstream electronics which I can hack to get Linux running on
them. At the end of the day, though, one has to come to terms with what
was pointed out earlier: we are dealing with proprietary hardware. And
as much as that may be disappointing, one has to realize that unlike
software, one cannot create and spread open-source hardware like one
can do with open source software in his basement just using free time --
because all the volunteers in the world cannot mint silicon and fab
PCBs and make them available to the rest of humanity.
We can convert all we want, but belief doesn't make money grow on trees.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the
>>>>moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not
>>>>crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are
>>>>trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all,
>>>forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, a lot of people see the GPL as a "crusading" license, and I think
>>that's partly because the FSF really has been acting like a crusader.
>>
>>But I think that one of the main reasons Linux has been successful is that
>>I don't think that the Linux community really is into crusading (some
>>small parts of it are, but it's not the main reason). I think Linux has
>>made the GPL more "socially acceptable", by being a hell of a lot less
>>religious about it than the FSF was.
>>
>>So to me, the point of the GPL is not the "convert the infidels" logic,
>>but something totally different:
>>
>
>
> Thank you. I think that completely clarified your position in this.
>
> Personally, I'm more of a "crusader". I don't think it's ok to force
> someone into our way of thinking, but when the try to use our work I
> feel they have at least a moral obligation to be as open themselves.
> Kind of along the lines of the old "Do unto others..."-saying. That also
> mean I don't really like bundling proprietary and open software (which I
> do for a living so feel free to call me a hypocrite).
>
> This whole DRM:d hardware issue is a bit different though since it seems
> to be moving to a point where it cannot be avoided. "Vote with your
> wallet" fails when there are so few of us that care about these things.
> With they way electronics are packaged nowadays (chip packages that is),
> it's getting increasingly difficult to build your own stuff. My fear is
> that open source will be something you can only fiddle with on your ten
> year old computer from the pre-DRM era.
>
> Rgds
> Pierre
>
> -
Well, i followed this thread on and off and i'd like to add a few words
of mine;
I think the harder one tries to enforce things on ppl the more
resistance is created. The 'free' countries who don't buy that DRM crap
will have a mighty opening in the market by creating machines which
allow you to do whatever you want (think of the region free players).
Just like the music industry is battling the ocean, they can't stop it,
cause ppl like to be free in their choices and creativeness. Yet the
internet music income is increasing which proves them wrong anyway.
I'd rather buy chinese hardware which i can do whatever i want to do
with and/or create software for than something of those who want to
control ppl in what they do and don't. Next thing is when you start your
system a signal is sent that "Drone 87-3KD983S" is now working on his
system.
Just remember, there are alway solutions, but not at the price of freedom.
Greetz,
Mark
Hi!
> ... and bearing in mind that there are legitimate non-DRM embedded and
> security applications where runtime software restrictions are required/
> inherent ... think:
> - software controlling consumer appliances such as cars, etc.
What is wrong with changing software in my car? I'm allowed to cut my
own brakes, why should I be disallowed in software in my car.
> - masked-ROM software (non-flashable)
That's fair; I don't think GPLv3 forbids ROMs, through.
Pavel
--
Thanks, Sharp!
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 23:02 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> What is wrong with changing software in my car? I'm allowed to cut my
> own brakes, why should I be disallowed in software in my car.
Not if you want to drive on a public street...
Lee
Pavel Machek wrote:
> What is wrong with changing software in my car? I'm allowed to cut my
> own brakes, why should I be disallowed in software in my car.
Lee aptly answered this one.
> That's fair; I don't think GPLv3 forbids ROMs, through.
If that's all it takes to not fall under the DRM requirements of the
GPLv3 then certainly no consumer electronics manufacturer that I know
of will hesitate to ship Linux (or any other piece of software I
should add) on masked ROMs should it ever convert to GPLv3. It's not
like they haven't been doing that for the past 30+ years. Any good
that will have done to any of those championing GPLv3 to help stop
DRM ...
Seriously, though, my earlier suggestion is even simpler. Just let
both signed and unsigned kernels run, just don't enable key user-
space-application-controlled hardware components if not signed and
do so in such a way requiring a power-up/hard-reset for another
pass at enable/disable. Perfectly permissible in the draft.
And I dare say that I hardly see how the FSF could try to cover this
one in any future draft since doing so would require having to place
restrictions on what independently-developed software/hardware
combinations are allowed in any system containing the covered
"work".
Like I said before: right cause, wrong venue.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
>> This whole DRM:d hardware issue is a bit different though since it seems
>> to be moving to a point where it cannot be avoided. "Vote with your
>> wallet" fails when there are so few of us that care about these things.
>> With they way electronics are packaged nowadays (chip packages that is),
>> it's getting increasingly difficult to build your own stuff. My fear is
>> that open source will be something you can only fiddle with on your ten
>> year old computer from the pre-DRM era.
>>
>
> Forgive me, but I don't subscribe to this cataclysmic scenario. The only
> reason it's getting increasingly difficult to build your own stuff is
> because the chip manufacturers are interested in making money, and to
> do that they have to answer market demand, and market demand nowadays
> is for gizmos/systems that have an ever-increasing number of features
> and ever-increasing performance requirements. Cell phones are a prime
> example. So, yes, it would be totally impossible to think today that
> any single group of individuals could reproduce the early Apple era,
> but that's just life -- things get complicated with time.
>
>
That's understandable. I cannot require them to go out of their way to
accommodate my desire for tinkering. When they decide to actually put
time and effort into preventing me from tinkering then I get a bit
annoyed. I still cannot really do much about it though. If people keep
buying the crap then it will continue to be produced. What I can do is
say that such a system is not allowed to be based on my work. It may not
matter in the long run, but at least I'm doing something. Things might
get better by itself, or worse for that matter, but I'd prefer to not
stand idly by, hoping it will go the way I'd like.
I try to not sound like a doomsday prophet, but I tend to get a bit
worked up when I consider what it would be like with this DRM nonsense
taken to the extreme. :)
Rgds
Pierre
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> That's understandable. I cannot require them to go out of their way to
> accommodate my desire for tinkering. When they decide to actually put
> time and effort into preventing me from tinkering then I get a bit
> annoyed. I still cannot really do much about it though. If people keep
> buying the crap then it will continue to be produced. What I can do is
> say that such a system is not allowed to be based on my work. It may not
> matter in the long run, but at least I'm doing something.
FWIW, let me just say that I fully understand and respect your point of
view. I don't take any enjoyment out of seing some of the stuff I've
done used in such a way either. I just have a different take on how that
best be solved.
> Things might
> get better by itself, or worse for that matter, but I'd prefer to not
> stand idly by, hoping it will go the way I'd like.
>
> I try to not sound like a doomsday prophet, but I tend to get a bit
> worked up when I consider what it would be like with this DRM nonsense
> taken to the extreme. :)
Going a little bit off topic here allow me to say that I personally
find most of the actual content out there being sold is utter junk.
I don't remember which one it was out of Siskel or Ebbert (and god
rest his soul I don't even remember which one passed away), but one
of them appeared on this documentary once and said something like:
"If you're 30 and you've got a degree, there's absolutely nothing
for you to see at the movie theater." And my impression is that this
applies readily accross the board for all entertainment. I mean, for
pete's sake, these supposed content providers are offering up new
"artists" every other week and they keep pumping out these totally
brain-dead TV shows ... Heck, I can't remember the last time I opened
the TV or listened to the radio and thought: "this is actually worth
my time." So, as far as I'm concerned, the brand names can encrypt
the content all they want, it's probably more interesting to watch
that way anyway.
FWIW, I suspect that part of the reason a lot of these folks are
seeing a decline in sales is mainly because their content isn't
something the clients think is really all that worthy.
Think about it, when is the last time you heard of an artist or
saw one perform on screen or elsewhere and thought to yourself:
"wow, this is really a talented person/group."
And to be quite frank, I have no pitty for artists who boo-hoo in
public about those darn "pirates" taking their income away. The
human species has been pumping out performers, singers, composers,
... artists for thousands of years before anyone was able to
record them. The only difference here is that many modern "artists"
think they have a god-given right that society continue to
sustain their relatively-recent recording-media-funded revenues.
Digital media only means bubble-gum "artists" fade away. True
ones are likely continue being what they are, regardless of the
fate of recorded-media as an income.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
http://www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
Pierre Ossman wrote:
>This whole DRM:d hardware issue is a bit different though since it seems
>to be moving to a point where it cannot be avoided. "Vote with your
>wallet" fails when there are so few of us that care about these things.
>
>
I do not share this fear. Well, off-the-shelf complete pc's might end
up like
that, demanding a signed OS and so on if we take a very pessimistic
view on the future.
But "vote with your wallet" still works. There is a huge parts market .
You can buy hundreds of brands of motherboards, processors and
add-on cards. Strict DRM will never fly in this market! What if
_one_ manufacturer comes out with a new improved motherboard that only
will boot and run a signed version of windows? No sales!
The guy who build is own computer won't take that sort of thing, he'll
find another manufacturer. Remember the outrage when Intel implemented
cpuID? They were forced to make that optional.
And if one country encourages DRM hw, then other countries will
ramp up non-DRM hw production as the demand rises.
I think the worst that could possibly happen is that cheap complete pc's
found at supermarkets might have some DRM hw in them. Stuff that
we might need a few 30-hour debugging sessions to circumvent. And
so we will be forced to assemble our pc's from parts - the way we
usually do anyway for other reasons.
Helge Hafting
* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> It boils down to this: we wrote the software. That's the only part _I_
> care about, and perhaps (at least to me) more importantly, because
> it's the only part we created, it's the only part that I feel we have
> a moral right to control.
yes, that's how i feel too. Quid pro Quo. But we are in the minority.
The majority of Linux users, and the vast majority of commercial Linux
players doesnt give a rat's a** about giving back a Quid, as a fair
compensation for our Quo.
(i dont see a problem with that by the way - i consider it a basic moral
right to have different moral rules. The moment i'd require others to
share exactly the same morals i'd become just another crusader. But i
digress.)
what the others see is the black and white letter of the GPL [or just
some free software they can download and install], not a moral situation
with us, which they would have to understand and meet. They are and will
increasingly try to give back as little as they can get away with -
depending on their own moral rules. Some will also try to employ tactics
that we see as "immoral", and they wont see it as immoral, under their
own rules.
(one extreme example for a community with very strong moral rules is the
Sicilian Mafia. They had (and still have) extremely strong inner rules,
and everyone within a given family is loved and is being taken care of
for a lifetime - in the positive sense of the word. Still the external
effect on the rest of society is perverse and disastrous. But i digress
again.)
so the only solution is to convert our moral rules to an objective set
of rules, as accurately as possible. This in our society would be the
(neutral) letter of the law, and a copyright license in particular.
after that act of conversion we can only hope for the best that no
detail important to us gets lost in the process. Our (your) initial
approach to that was the GPLv2, and it was a pretty accurate (and lucky)
first approximation.
what do we have today? We've got bin-only kernel modules, much of which
are clearly immoral, they are clearly hurting us and still we do things
to keep them going - e.g. the refusal to remove 8K stacks from the
.config. We are increasingly getting into a situation where loopholes
are found and utilized to give back as little as possible, upsetting the
balance.
so i believe _something_ should be done to tip the balance, because the
negative effects are already hurting us. I'd support the move to the
GPLv3 only as a tool to move the balance back into a fairer situation,
not as some new moral mechanism. The GPLv3 might be overboard for that,
but still the situation does exist undeniably.
> I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the
> moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. [...]
yes, and i do share your morals on that. OTOH i do think there are a
few more aspects:
- most of the known violations of the Quid pro Quo comes from the space
of closed hardware that is pushing for DRM best. So there's some
itching in me to just make things more strict in the area that is
causing us the most problems.
- can they give us the source code for the modifications on Linux on a
DRM-ed medium that we cannot read on any open hardware? From a moral
POV they cannot, but can they do it legally? Could they argue in 5
years that SHD-DVD version 10 is a 'widely used' medium, and that they
met the letter of the GPLv2? If we never enforce that the source be
actually compilable and usable on real hardware, how can we suddenly
claim to have a right to run it on open hardware? We might create a
legal waiver or estoppel situation if we dont enforce the usefulness
of the source code given back to us. Even cockroaches are surprisingly
creative - after all there is a business entity on this planet that
thought it to be fair to produce source code in discovery by printing
it out to a ton of paper and then scanning it back in ;-) And they
even got away with it!
- we really grew up on the supposition that there is a fundamental
ability and right to tinker. Business entitities were simply not able
back then to restrict that, technologically. Today there are business
models that seem to be working just fine with closed hardware. Content
and programmability restrictions via crytography are more and more
practical, and the day will come when the Xbox will be truly
cryptographically safe and totally closed.
NOTE: i do know that the elimination of tinkering is bad for society
down the road - so in theory we should win in the long run. But
society might not care! Maybe only 1 civilization out of a 100 get
past this stage of development - the rest destroy themselves and
create a burned out shell of a planet with some proto-civilization
and no resources left. Nature is really, really cruel.
Do we have the moral right to restrict (in the worst case, eliminate)
our children's ability to tinker _at all_? Doesnt our software become
totally useless if the possibility to tinker gets eliminated? Only
1-5% of all people have the brain structure and desire to tinker (and
to think creatively), so if it were up for a vote today we'd lose in
the polls, badly ...
Dont you think we have the moral obligation to support all the
"infrastructure" that gave us this ideal paradise of tinkering with
Linux in the first place? Dont you sense we (programmers, tinkerers)
are a minority that could _easily_ be opressed by society at large,
without them even noticing? Supporting fact: society is heading
towards a nice big greenhouse effect right now, with 99% of the
scientists crying bloody murder already - and basically nothing is
done. Crushing these 'geek dudes' which would indeed result in lost
productivity a few decades down the line, but right now it wouldnt
even be a blip on the policy radar i'm afraid, as long as it results
in blockbuster movies getting on to the TV screen faster, and as long
as it results in a 5% cheaper HD-DVD player ...
Thinking about those issues and current trends, i'm really getting an
urge to grab some bigger protective gear, like the GPLv3!
Ingo
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:30:30 +0100, Helge Hafting said:
> This can't legally happen. Do the DMCA prevent "circumventing"
> even when you have the legal right to make copies of the content?
As a matter of fact, yes. See 17 USC 1201 and Skylarov v. Adobe - the fact
that a user may have totally legitimate fair-use access to the protected
content is *not* an exemption to the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause.
> (If so, then the music industry breaks DMCA when manufacturing
> their protected CDs from a protected master . . .)
Oohh.. an interesting point.. ;)
On Thursday 02 February 2006 19:11, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > What nvidia is doing is already illegal under the GPLv2.
>
> I don't think that's been legally proven.
>
> The question is whether it is a derivative work.
The LGPL deals with only derivative works. The GPL also deals with mere
*linking*. If glibc were GPL'd, it would be illegal to make an OS based on it
with a single C program incompatible with the GPL.
> If they ship the binary blob as well as code that interfaces the binary
> blob with the kernel, and the end-user compiles the code together and
> loads it into the kernel, does that necessarily violate the GPL?
The 'code that interfaces the binary blob with the kernel' would then be
illegal, because the code cannot be both GPL and proprietary. If the code is
GPL and acceptable for kernel-linking, then under the terms of the GPL, the
code cannot link to a GPL-incompatible binary blob.
Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Thursday 02 February 2006 19:11, Christopher Friesen wrote:
>
>> ship the binary blob as well as code that interfaces the binary
>> blob with the kernel, and the end-user compiles the code together and
>> loads it into the kernel, does that necessarily violate the GPL?
>>
>
> The 'code that interfaces the binary blob with the kernel' would then be
> illegal, because the code cannot be both GPL and proprietary. If the code is
> GPL and acceptable for kernel-linking, then under the terms of the GPL, the
> code cannot link to a GPL-incompatible binary blob.
>
Not at all. The linking interface code does not have to enforce GPL
restrictions until it is linked to GPL code. It could be BSD, for
example, as much kernel code is. BSD can link to binary blob without a
problem. BSD can link to GPL without a problem. The final result is a
undistributable bastard, but the end user will not be distributing.
Taken as separate pieces, the code cannot be illegal. It is only by
arguing the intent to link to GPL code, and the distribution of the glue
and proprietary together that there would even be the possibility of
proving a license violation. If that looked to be a possibility, all
nVidia, or anyone else would have to do is publish only their binary
blob along with instructions to third parties on how to create interface
glue. Such a kernel module, written by a third party, to published
documentation, would clearly be an interface, not a link, and not
something the GPL could apply to.
So, you could _maybe_ stop people from directly providing proprietary
binaries plus glue modules in the same package, but you could not
prevent them from achieving the same result with a bit of extra effort.
> The LGPL deals with only derivative works. The GPL also deals with mere
> *linking*. If glibc were GPL'd, it would be illegal to make an OS
> based on it
> with a single C program incompatible with the GPL.
The GPL also only deals with derivative works. If linking does not create a
derivative work, then the GPL cannot affect it. The GPL cannot define its
own scope, only copyright law does that. GPL section zero states this, but
even if it didn't it would still be true.
The GPL could say that it affected every work every created by any human
being. It could say that it affected a work created by any person who ever
used a GPL'd work. But these things would have no force because copyright
law provides no such mechanism.
The only way the GPL can control work Y because it affects work Z is
because Y is a derivative work of work Z. If it's not, then the works are
legally unrelated, and no matter what the GPL says, it can't affect work Y.
If work Z is a "mere aggregate" containin all or part of work Y, then the
GPL would still apply to work Y, but not to any part of work Z not from work
Y.
DS
On Feb 06, 2006, at 16:07, David Schwartz wrote:
>> The LGPL deals with only derivative works. The GPL also deals with
>> mere *linking*. If glibc were GPL'd, it would be illegal to make
>> an OS based on it with a single C program incompatible with the GPL.
>
> The only way the GPL can control work Y because it affects work Z
> is because Y is a derivative work of work Z. If it's not, then the
> works are legally unrelated, and no matter what the GPL says, it
> can't affect work Y.
To say this more simplistically, the LGPL essentially says "Even if
dynamic linking constitutes making a derivative work, we allow you to
dynamically link, so long as the rules are followed for the LGPL code
to which you link". The GPL essentially says "If dynamic linking is
making a derivative work, then these rules apply to the whole
derivative work and all of its constituent parts".
Whether or not an NVidia binary module is a derivative work is left
up to the courts to decide. It _may_ be legal (don't trust me,
consult your lawyer) to have a very simple cross-platform interface
and some BSD-licensed glue. On the other hand, if your interface
derives from or exposes any kind of kernel-internals, then it is most
certainly a derivative work (because you can't argue that the binary
interface was written to be independent of Linux, and it therefore
falls under the GPL.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things,
because that would also stop them from doing clever things.
-- Doug Gwyn
On Monday 06 February 2006 21:07, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The LGPL deals with only derivative works. The GPL also deals with mere
> > *linking*. If glibc were GPL'd, it would be illegal to make an OS
> > based on it
> > with a single C program incompatible with the GPL.
>
> The GPL also only deals with derivative works. If linking does not create
> a derivative work, then the GPL cannot affect it. The GPL cannot define its
> own scope, only copyright law does that. GPL section zero states this, but
> even if it didn't it would still be true.
GPL can establish terms for distribution of the original software, even if it
goes unmodified. In other words, by distributing the GPL software, one must
agree that all software being distributed at the same time linking to it are
GPL-compatible. The GPL cannot prohibit you from distributing the linking
software in this case, but it can prohibit distribution of the original
software.
> The GPL could say that it affected every work every created by any human
> being. It could say that it affected a work created by any person who ever
> used a GPL'd work. But these things would have no force because copyright
> law provides no such mechanism.
They would have force as conditions of distributing GPL software. If someone
distributed software under the GPL, they would be accepting its terms and
thus accepting that the GPL applies to all work they created. This example
could be a bit extreme, however, and prohibited just on the grounds of being
an invalidly-broad contract.
> The only way the GPL can control work Y because it affects work Z is
> because Y is a derivative work of work Z. If it's not, then the works are
> legally unrelated, and no matter what the GPL says, it can't affect work Y.
But it can prohibit distribution of work Z when work Y does not comply with
the terms.
> If work Z is a "mere aggregate" containin all or part of work Y, then the
> GPL would still apply to work Y, but not to any part of work Z not from
> work Y.
Linking is not mere aggregation.
On Monday 06 February 2006 22:38, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Feb 06, 2006, at 16:07, David Schwartz wrote:
> >> The LGPL deals with only derivative works. The GPL also deals with
> >> mere *linking*. If glibc were GPL'd, it would be illegal to make
> >> an OS based on it with a single C program incompatible with the GPL.
> >
> > The only way the GPL can control work Y because it affects work Z
> > is because Y is a derivative work of work Z. If it's not, then the
> > works are legally unrelated, and no matter what the GPL says, it
> > can't affect work Y.
>
> To say this more simplistically, the LGPL essentially says "Even if
> dynamic linking constitutes making a derivative work, we allow you to
> dynamically link, so long as the rules are followed for the LGPL code
> to which you link". The GPL essentially says "If dynamic linking is
> making a derivative work, then these rules apply to the whole
> derivative work and all of its constituent parts".
Does the "if" clause exist? If not, then by distributing the original
software, the distributor is agreeing to abide by the GPL terms for anything
linking with it. If the linking code is not GPL-compatible, the distributor
cannot legally distribute the GPL'd component.
> Whether or not an NVidia binary module is a derivative work is left
> up to the courts to decide. It _may_ be legal (don't trust me,
> consult your lawyer) to have a very simple cross-platform interface
> and some BSD-licensed glue.
They might have a legal loophole if dynamic linking doesn't constitute a
derivative work *and* nVidia doesn't distribute Linux (thus does not need to
agree to GPL terms).