Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422724AbWHSR2o (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:28:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161050AbWHSR2o (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:28:44 -0400 Received: from s2.ukfsn.org ([217.158.120.143]:54924 "EHLO mail.ukfsn.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161046AbWHSR2o (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:28:44 -0400 Message-ID: <44E74A49.4050700@dgreaves.com> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:28:41 +0100 From: David Greaves User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick McFarland Cc: davids@webmaster.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: GPL Violation? References: <44E6EC68.9060801@dgreaves.com> <200608191229.24448.diablod3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200608191229.24448.diablod3@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2091 Lines: 46 Patrick McFarland wrote: > On Saturday 19 August 2006 06:48, David Greaves wrote: >> David Schwartz wrote: >> It's not a rights _enforcement_ scheme on it's own (presumably enforcement >> would ultimately involve men with big sticks - aka the legal system). It >> simply helps manage (GPL) rights. > > Then how is it not a rights enforcement scheme? It helps me enforce the GPL > (see Helge Hafting's post: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/19/50 for example > why). Semantics - I think we agree: See where I said "not ... on it's own" and "It simply helps manage rights". Well that equates with your statement where you accept that you are the enforcer and this tool is an aide: "It _helps_ _me_ enforce the GPL". As Helge says: It is still a rights management system, even if it isn't forced upon the users. Which is what I meant - it's trivial to bypass - unlike some rights management systems which are intrusive and designed to be hard to bypass. If it was designed to be hard to bypass and actually worked (ie the deviant developer couldn't simply lie) then it would be an enforcement system. As it is it wasn't designed to enforce (it's bloody hard to design an open source system that you can't work around - Tivo did it - hence GPLv3... but let's not ) The DVD's CSS and Macrovision OTOH were designed to be enforcement systems (not perfect and lots of arguments that they hurt the wrong people and don't stop pirates but...) This tool/system serves to state one (- not the only) boundary that the copyright owners feel strongly about and it clearly communicates that boundary to other developers. It's like a "Private Property - No Trespassing" sign - if you have a big glowing one then people later find it harder to argue that they didn't know or that there was an implicit invitation because the gate was open... David -- - 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/