Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755930AbXFNWtU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:49:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752421AbXFNWtM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:49:12 -0400 Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50315 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752031AbXFNWtK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:49:10 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Alexandre Oliva Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:48:55 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: "Chris Friesen" , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <46718044.1040108@nortel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706141848.55378.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4287 Lines: 96 On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" wrote: > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the > >> hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free > >> Software in it. > > > > No you're not...you're talking about being able to hack the software > > *and load it back onto the original hardware*. > > Yes. You wouldn't impose restrictions on modifying the software like > that, now would you? Even though the GPL says you can't impose > further restrictions on modification and distribution. replace != modify > > >> It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use > >> the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that > >> they're entitled to have. > > > > The software license controls the software. If the hardware has > > restrictions on it that limit what software it will run, then that is > > unrelated to the software license. > > As in, the license controls the software. If a patent creates > restrictions that limit what you can do with the software, then that > is unrelated to the software license. No - because this case is covered in GPLv2. Lose the straw-men. > As in, the license controls the software. If a discriminatory > contract limits what you can do with the software, then that is > unrelated to the software license. Incorrect. This is, again, covered by the GPLv2. Straw-man argument. > As in, the license controls the software. If I send you the source > code, but it happens to be protected by a key that only the hardware > can decode, and it won't decode for you, then that is unrelated to the > software license. Straw-man. Situation covered by the GPLv2. > Is that so, really? > > > There is nothing stopping you from taking the code for the tivo, > > modifying it, distributing it, or even running it on other hardware. > > True. But TiVO is still imposing further restrictions on how I can > modify the software stored in their device, while reserving that > ability to itself. This is wrong. This is not "in kind". This is > not "tit-for-tat". Tit-for-tat is: if they can, then I can too, and > if I can't, then they can't either. But that right has never been guaranteed by the GPL. It might have been the *intent* of RMS when he wrote GPLv1 and the *intent* of the FSF when they wrote GPLv2, but intent is worth exactly *NOTHING* in the law *UNLESS* that intent is spelled out. Anyway, as I've pointed out before: replace != modify You can *replace* parts of a program and it will be a modification, you can *replace* components of a piece of Hardware and it will be a modification but replacing one software component of a device with another is *NOT* a modification. Why? Because the hardware hasn't changed at all - the hardware is merely there so the software can perform its job. And since you are *replacing* the *ENTIRE* piece of software, it isn't a modification of the software. > > Suppose I had some machine that will only run microsoft-signed > > binaries. Would it be at all related to any software license that this > > machine won't let me run linux? > > That would be an unfortunate machine to have, but if Linux or some > other GPLed software was not shipped in it, then I don't see how this > is relevant to this discussion. It's not about the hardware, it's > about the software in it, and about passing on the freedoms related > with it. Exactly. However, you are making it about the hardware by making the claim that "replacing a program, in its entirety, with another is a modification". It isn't. A modification is when you replace or change a *portion* of a program. By your logic I could write an operating system that is 100% binary compatible with Linux and I'd be *required* to release it under the GPL, because, even though it *replaces* Linux, it's still a "modification". DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - 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/