Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758729AbXFPAwa (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:52:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756917AbXFPAwY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:52:24 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.226]:62229 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754734AbXFPAwX (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:52:23 -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=RqjLj1+Tp/WjX0He3U8s/WtABwCBBfDp5FLMeNCN51dwLPpsfH7ZG5CvWH6HvXxN7PowOchG8/IxvX1+NSqdVdtF1g1GxcWFGyy7824nkSO6jD6ycm7EA1gAUUydNpgX/UZ11w59micEXD+tpHg76IjSrLd0TcSpO0f7zixkZk4= Message-ID: <7b69d1470706151752x30aeaaacl305d964b0ae4cc2d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:52:22 -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> <7b69d1470706151503v23253546w5648f04673741c8f@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3279 Lines: 84 On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" wrote: > > >> 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. --- Yes, but in highlighting the possibility of evil intentions you distort the fact that usually there are no such evil intentions... --- > > 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. --- I think that's a possibility. I don't see how it's functionally different from the usual case where the manufacturer can't modify the device without the user's consent simply because the user has physical access to the device and the manufacturer doesn't. --- > > > 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? --- Users benefit from the ability to get software updates, from the manufacturer, to resolve problems, fix security vulnerabilities, and provide updated functionality. --- > > > 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. --- You're harping on the "cannot legally", which is fine but irrelevant. Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device non-updatable nor forcing the manufacturer to use different software benefits anyone. I don't know of interesting cases where the manufacturer makes the device non-modifiable out of sheer bloody-mindedness. I don't believe that the existence of this clause will lead to more manufacturers making their devices modifiable - there are too many other options if they think that non-modifiability is important to them. [Note that I *do* think it's perfectly appropriate that authors who feel that they don't want their work used in such devices should be able to license them in line with that belief. I just don't think it has any practical value aside from making them feel better.] 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/