Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758639AbXFOWDT (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:03:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755707AbXFOWDK (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:03:10 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.231]:40418 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755588AbXFOWDI (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:03:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kSAQat/nTGLv7x+BXmUvoU2cfIzb2PMZlSPHQYDlz72e4mV9mzDchSSfwXnPWuRcFtwcxMfA0N8JwXZ8X6KwY/QRJPU74NteGnZXjDm/H4xDFkQGhv4+IcLh9SGZkHCS3FVk2/B7dJXWR5HADltIjoQLTwJ9yiVGRL7F7URNbYA= Message-ID: <7b69d1470706151503v23253546w5648f04673741c8f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:03:07 -0500 From: "Scott Preece" To: "Alexandre Oliva" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Rob Landley" , "Alan Cox" , "Daniel Hazelton" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , david@lang.hm, "Tarkan Erimer" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <20070614122031.4751a52b@the-village.bc.nu> <20070614122546.GB22078@elte.hu> <200706141907.11957.rob@landley.net> <20070615120926.GD6269@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2085 Lines: 42 On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute > > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that the > > FSF's president does not like. > > That's not true. They can just as well throw the key away and refrain > from modifying the installed software behind the users' back. --- This characterization misses something important. For many product devices, like cell phones, the modification is never "behind the user's back", but is done because the user has requested it (to fix a problem or add a new feature). If you go to ROM-based software, the user loses, because problems can't be fixed. For certain kinds of problems the user might be able to get a replacement device, but potentially involving losing any data stored on the device. The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no particular reason - if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom not at all) or to use software under a different license (which advances freedom not at all). The result? The user STILL has no freedom to modify the software and the community around the software is diminished. To go back to the "behind your back" claim, the only cases I know where the software is replaced behind the users' back are cases were the updates are done by a service (usually not operated by the device manufacturer) that the user has voluntarily requested (like TiVo program guides or cable system subscriptions), which is generally a cases outside the scope of the license in any case. scott - 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/