Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261204AbUKHT5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:57:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261206AbUKHT5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:57:37 -0500 Received: from witte.sonytel.be ([80.88.33.193]:21716 "EHLO witte.sonytel.be") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261204AbUKHT5d (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:57:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:57:30 +0100 (MET) From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Alan Cox cc: davids@webmaster.com, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rapha=EBl?= Rigo LKML , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: RE: GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code In-Reply-To: <1099927447.5564.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <1099927447.5564.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1985 Lines: 42 On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Alan Cox wrote: > On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 01:14, David Schwartz wrote: > > For those not familiar, sveasoft revokes your license to receive further > > updates if you exercise your distribution rights under the GPL. I would > > argue that conditioning the sale of a GPL'd work on a failure to exercise > > your rights under the GPL is a "further restriction". Did you have to pay first to receive updates later? I.e. you buy the device, and will receive future updates for free (no money)? > I don't see the problem. If I ship you GPL code then you have no "right" > to updates from me. You are arguing about a right that never existed and > for good reason. Do you think that if Linus personally emails you a > snapshot you somehow acquire the right to demand newer updates from him > ? or how about "I bought Red Hat 1.1 so you must send me 9.0". Both > strike me as a little ridiculous and certainly not GPL granted rights. > > As a GPL code provider their duties to you are to the source to the GPL > code they gave you binaries for (or other variant options in the > license). They end there. I don't have to give your friend a copy, I > don't have to give you updates. That's true: you don't have an automatic right to receive updates for free. But revoking a (paid) license if you do something that's explicitly allowed by the license of (part of) the supplied software sounds a bit fishy to me... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert (IANAL) -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/