Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Michiel de Boer <x@rebelhomicide.demon.nl>,
       James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <17687.46268.156413.352299@cse.unsw.edu.au>
References: <1158941750.3445.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
	 <451798FA.8000004@rebelhomicide.demon.nl>
	 <17687.46268.156413.352299@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:31:34 +0100
Message-Id: <1159183895.11049.56.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1293
Lines: 27

Ar Llu, 2006-09-25 am 20:51 +1000, ysgrifennodd Neil Brown:
> The 'DRM' provision of the proposed GPLv3 seem to be being driven by 1
> company - Tivo.  Yes, what they are doing is against our spirit of

Actually quite a few companies have done this, and in some cases have
been involved in out of court settlements over that kind of abuse.

Let's be clear about this. The GPLv2 covers the scripts etc for
installation. The DRM keys are probably covered, and out of court
settlements lend weight to that. It has always been my publically stated
position that I reserve the right to sue anyone who uses my code and
locks it away with keys.

The GPLv3 rewords it in an attempt to be clearer but also I think rather
more over-reaching. It's not clear what for example happens with a
rented device containing GPL software but with DRM on the hardware.
Thats quite different to owned hardware. GPLv2 leaves it open for the
courts to make a sensible decision per case, GPLv3 tries to define it in
advance and its very very hard to define correctly.

Alan

-
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/