Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754059AbXFOLby (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:31:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752844AbXFOLbo (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:31:44 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:47642 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753372AbXFOLbl (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:31:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:31:23 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Alan Cox , Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Message-ID: <20070615113123.GA6269@elte.hu> References: <200706132121.04532.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706132304.21984.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614112329.3645c397@the-village.bc.nu> <20070614103846.GA7902@elte.hu> <20070614195517.GA4933@elte.hu> <20070614235004.GA14952@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1850 Lines: 44 * Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the software", > > on that piece of hardware it bought which had free software on it, > > correct? > > Yes. This means the hardware distributor who put the software in > there must not place roadblocks that impede the user to get where she > wants with the software, not that the vendor must offer the user a > sport car to take her there. see the slippery slope in action? Lets just use this limited concession on your part and show that _even this_ leads to absurd results: - a "roadblock" such as a too small button? - a "roadblock" such as a soldered-on ROM instead of flash-ROM? - a "roadblock" such as not opening up specifications to the hardware? - a "roadblock" such as not releasing the source of the BIOS? (and here dont come with a "but the BIOS is not under the GPL" strawman argument. The Tivo hardware is not under the GPL license either! Your whole argument was that even though the Tivo hardware's design is not GPL-ed, if it runs free software it must not restrict the user's rights and that it must offer the same rights as the hardware manufacturer has. ) - a "roadblock" such as a virtual ROM implemented via an SHA1 key embedded in the hardware? each of these items limit your supposed "right to modify the software on that exact hardware". Each of these items puts a "roadblock" in the way and impedes the user to get where she wants with her software. So by your argument each of these items would be forbidden. That is nonsensical. Ingo - 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/