Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757419AbXFPQ6i (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:58:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755308AbXFPQ6a (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:58:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:36694 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755307AbXFPQ63 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:58:29 -0400 To: Bernd Schmidt Cc: Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , 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: <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> <20070615011012.6c09066e@the-village.bc.nu> <20070615012623.GA25189@elte.hu> <20070615101007.0cbfd078@the-village.bc.nu> <4673CA7C.5040207@t-online.de> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:57:59 -0300 In-Reply-To: <4673CA7C.5040207@t-online.de> (Bernd Schmidt's message of "Sat\, 16 Jun 2007 13\:33\:16 +0200") 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: 1756 Lines: 39 On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox wrote: >> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch >>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8) >> >> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that >> this would be "mission accomplished". > This is insane. You start with a lofty ideal involving "freedom", and > when you end up with a meaningless technicality (and in technical terms > a change for the worse) you consider it a victory? It accomplishes the mission in that everyone is on the same grounds. Same freedom for everyone. If the vendor tries to keep a privilege over the software to itself, denying it to its customers, it's failing to comply with the spirit of the license. It's really this simple. Is this so hard to understand? The goal is not to push vendors away from GPLed software. If they can't permit modification of the software, that's fine, they can still accomplish this. What they can't do is deny it to customers while they retain it to themselves. This is unfair, this is wrong, and this disrespects users' freedoms. Therefore, the GPL should not permit it. -- 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/