Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759319AbXFQCA6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:00:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758021AbXFQCAv (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:00:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:39756 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754584AbXFQCAv (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:00:51 -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> <46747D77.6090906@t-online.de> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:00:23 -0300 In-Reply-To: <46747D77.6090906@t-online.de> (Bernd Schmidt's message of "Sun\, 17 Jun 2007 02\:16\:55 +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: 1651 Lines: 36 On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > See, that's the problem I have with your arguments. "Same freedom for > everyone" is a political slogan. It is not a reasoned thought. Well, this is what got us GPLv2. And the same reasoning is getting us GPLv3, and it does get hardware manufacturers to think twice instead of tivoizing hardware. They can decide between respecting users' freedoms and encouraging a community of developers around its product, or they can decide that not letting users change the software is more important or necessary, and give up the ability to install modifications without user approval. If half of the vendors go each way, we'll get far more contributions in the end, so we're better off. This is why I think the argument that anti-tivoization won't get us more "giving back in kind" is irrational and contradictory. > "Tivo should install ROMs so they don't have more rights than users" TiVo doesn't have to install ROMs. It can use the same technical measures it uses today, then throw away the keys. Or give the user half of the signing key, or some such. How bad would this be for them? -- 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/