Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030846AbWI0VBZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:01:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030847AbWI0VBZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:01:25 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:15496 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030846AbWI0VBY (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:01:24 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Nicolas Mailhot , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement References: <43447.192.54.193.51.1159350218.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:01:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:41:48 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: 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: 1088 Lines: 26 Linus Torvalds writes: > But the whole point was to just show how silly the whole "upgradable" vs > "not upgradable" discussion is. We're literally talking about something > where apparently it matters to the GPLv3 whether a pin on a chip is > connected to software or hardware (or not at all). Is that sane? I admit I haven't read the last GPLv3 draft, but for me the "freedom" (=> benefit) is not the ability to alter software in some specific existing device, but rather to take the software, perhaps modify it and use in _my_ hardware device. I can't use a modified kernel with their TIVO platform? No problem, Chinese can make a better one, or maybe some mini ITX board from VIA would do. Though I think "upgrading" engine settings of my car could be nice, never had time to look at it :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/