Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754877AbXFNUYa (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:24:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751407AbXFNUYW (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:24:22 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.179]:17927 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751354AbXFNUYV (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:24:21 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=nWb4cj4z2/cpxfi9JdfjCiYRWq0MrJwDZmKKli1Rt7LA+k5nsPJx196rGepY37jSoxXRr+29Yc+vR3ZKtxOywdnGWqJokxha3nctSTGQWdq4cXdnCRUR0M9+h2WlWIxlbrrLDAkw4g3sUP5MsypV5KRstTfM0Q2Q0HKLCExuylU= Message-ID: <161717d50706141324y303f3d89n54447b7cb387979c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:24:19 -0400 From: "Dave Neuer" To: "Lennart Sorensen" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , "david@lang.hm" , "Tarkan Erimer" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <20070614175305.GI10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070610160531.GA12179@kroah.com> <20070612184110.GB7980@kroah.com> <20070613211432.GH10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20070614175305.GI10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> X-Google-Sender-Auth: d98ec5062357dc29 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1842 Lines: 37 On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel > changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such > the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled. Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs, outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even available in batches that small. This argument seems totally disingenuous to me. The GPLv<3 was written in a time when the majority of sotware to which the license was applied was written for general purpose computers. The "user" was the owner of the computer, and Freedom 0 was about letting that user RUN modified copies of the software. Things have changed a lot; we're surrounded by embedded computers, and Freedom 0 seems to strongly imply I should have the right to run modified versions of the Free Software I own on the hardware I OWN. Or is the future of Open Source that you'll be able to hack on free software as long as you work for Intel, Red Hat, TiVO, Google or OSDL? Or own many-thousand-$$ fab printer? Look, I totally respect Linus' and others' position that the license is an inappropriate way to enforce what they feel are hardware design decisions, but can we dispense w/ the silly argument that the intent of the GPL is fullfilled as long as the user is allowed to modify the software where modify means "imagine a world where they'd be able to run" it? Dave - 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/