DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=BqB3FMvrl7ZHcNdvt/swk4mYnYPFkCVsf1U0nf0Y1D8AgLyELI/Ih3BUM4okllO8gxh0n7VwotmHzOkcT7bRjlItArkg0odWKWmXJvVdiSURGqBBnpfwDmQdrX7S28TJjfXIIV9BdUuyb5nW29nW+sER7/VqJG4htrVgTajj4ww=
Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches
	for 2.6.19]
From: karderio <karderio@gmail.com>
Reply-To: karderio@gmail.com
To: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: karderio
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:56:22 +0100
Message-Id: <1166226982.12721.78.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2239
Lines: 50

Hi :o)

Linus Torvalds wrote : 
> The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the 
> exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell 
> people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the 
> DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly 
> granted by copyright law.
> 
> Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical?
> 
> So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not 
> surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked 
> two-facedness about this.

The comparison of what is being suggested for kernel modules to the
actions of the RIAA doesn't seem very fitting. If anything is being
pushed, and anybody is being told what to do, it seems to be pushing for
"openness" and telling corporations to provide important information
about their products. The RIAA seems to be doing the opposite, enforcing
total control over what they release.

Apparently, the GPL itself is a compromise, in order to assure freedom
of information in a non-ideal world. The GPL combats copyright law with
copyright law, it's paradoxical but not hypocritical, and what is being
suggested here for kernel modules seems analog. To call people who are
struggling for freedom with comparatively few resources "two faced" or
"hypocritical" when they must compromise on their principles doesn't
seem all that fair.

If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. I'm generally not
at all combative, and would generally argue for leaving people free to
do as they wish. In this case I think the issue, the freedom of
information, is rather an important one, and within reason measures
should be taken to defend it.

Love, Karderio.


"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light
without darkening me."


-
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/