Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763283AbXFJTcv (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:32:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756404AbXFJTcp (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:32:45 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:64108 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754785AbXFJTco (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:32:44 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mFWrKcSMYncC26lEy5DvB+cekYJ23rF659UZ6nXGd35pCP9tM6ciZGO5EMOUr5einF6/G+bncsYE4+WhELgsu38jEUO23ci0QpGg8RuKlHFIMuZV81IkVFx4qYj6ORhaUbSk3dda5wEkQwP9zdAMXCz6o3v6k732wySg/5sZOEw= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:02:42 +0530 From: "debian developer" To: "Alan Cox" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Linus Torvalds" , "Andrew Morton" , greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 In-Reply-To: <20070610184736.464d1e32@the-village.bc.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <20070609071231.GL2649@lug-owl.de> <466BB9B0.5030908@netone.net.tr> <466BCBBC.90305@netone.net.tr> <466C0901.4000405@netone.net.tr> <20070610184736.464d1e32@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1001 Lines: 22 On 6/10/07, Alan Cox wrote: > > licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about > > "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about > > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not ^^^^^^^^ Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically. I agree with Linus that software licenses should have their influence only on the software part and leave the freedom of the hardware on which the software runs to the hardware manufacturers. But was it the goal of GPLv2?? And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know his opinions.... - 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/