Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759605AbXFOXWl (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:22:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755947AbXFOXWd (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:22:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40740 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759522AbXFOXWb (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:22:31 -0400 To: "Scott Preece" 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" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 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> <7b69d1470706151503v23253546w5648f04673741c8f@mail.gmail.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:21:48 -0300 In-Reply-To: <7b69d1470706151503v23253546w5648f04673741c8f@mail.gmail.com> (Scott Preece's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 17\:03\:07 -0500") 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: 2229 Lines: 54 On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" wrote: > 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" Okay, take out the "behind the users' back", it makes no difference. That was just to highlight the frequent evil intentions behind keeping the keys. I wonder if giving half the key to the user and keeping the other half would be enough to satisfy the GPLv3 language while still enabling the vendor and user to update the software together. > The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places > the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no > particular reason Over *users* interest? How so? > 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). Right. But if the manufacturer believes that it can legally allow it, and wants to be able to install, software modifications, then it must decide between giving that up and letting the user do it as well. And this is where the users interests may prevail. -- 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/