Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752370AbXFNFI1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:08:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750747AbXFNFIT (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:08:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:55571 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750745AbXFNFIS (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:08:18 -0400 To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706132121.04532.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706132304.21984.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:07:25 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706132304.21984.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Wed\, 13 Jun 2007 23\:04\:21 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) 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: 1718 Lines: 37 On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > User B buys the router and modifies the kernel so it drives the WiFi to an > output power twice that which it is licensed to carry. > FCC finds out and prosecutes User B for violating the regulations. Ok so far. > FCC then pulls the small companies license until they change their > hardware so the driver can't push it to transmit at a higher power > level and levies a fine. I'd say this is unfair, but if it can happen, then maybe the small company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing restrictions of modification on any software in the device, all the way from hardware-constrained output power to hardware-verified authorized configuration parameters. > Growing the base of installed GPL covered software, When this doesn't bring freedom to people, when people can't actually enjoy the freedoms that the software is supposed to provide, I don't see why this would be a good thing. What's the merit in being able to claim "vendor X chose my Free Software and locked it down such that users don't get the freedoms I meant for them, and I'm happy about it?" -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/