Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758243AbXFOCmf (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:42:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751676AbXFOCm2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:42:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:53637 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751662AbXFOCm1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:42:27 -0400 To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Paul Mundt , Linus Torvalds , Lennart Sorensen , 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: <200706141617.46734.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706142100.33478.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:42:05 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706142100.33478.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Thu\, 14 Jun 2007 21\:00\:33 -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: 2428 Lines: 54 On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:27:27 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >> > >> > And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or >> > other GPL'd software installed and place limits such that only >> > people that have purchased that hardware have access to the >> > "modified" source running on the device are following the letter, >> > and the spirit, of the GPL. >> >> WAIT, WAIT, THAT'S... :-) >> >> > Before you start yelling I'm wrong, think about it this way: they >> > make the source available to the people that they've given binary >> > versions to, and there is nothing stopping one of those people from >> > making the source available to the rest of the world. >> >> The *only* in your sentence betrayed you. >> >> If they place the limits such that nobody else can access the sources, >> they're in violation of the license. > Nope. There is *NO* requirement *ANYWHERE* in the GPL, no matter the version, > that says you have to *DISTRIBUTE* the source to *ANYONE* except those that > you have given a binary to. Go read the licenses. I agree. I even said so. But the *only* gave me the impression that you were talking about magic, or any other sufficiently advanced technology ;-), that would enable the recipients to get the source code, but not usefully pass it on. > That is *EXACTLY* what a number of companies have done - Acer (yes, > the laptop company) has done that. They sell laptops running Linux, > but unless you have purchased one of them you can't download the > sources (or even replacement binaries) for the version of linux they > put on their machines. (From Acer, that is) That's the sort of stuff that breaks the tit-for-tat premise. GPL indeed is not concerned about tit-for-tat. It's concerned about respect for the freedoms. -- 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/