Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759443AbXFQFPS (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:15:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751493AbXFQFPG (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:15:06 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:37712 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753517AbXFQFPF (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:15:05 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:14:51 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Bron Gondwana , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , 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 Message-ID: <20070617051451.GD21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <200706161817.36657.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706162306.14516.dhazelton@enter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2486 Lines: 51 On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:31:00AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I'm not trying to say why Linus and others chose the GPLv2. > > I'm not trying to determine what their motivations were. > > I'm not trying to force them to change to GPLv3. > > I'm not trying to convince them that tivozation is a bad thing. > > I'm only trying to show that anti-tivozation is in line with the > spirit of the GPL. ... and anti-tivoization section shows all symptoms of going in wrong direction, *whether* *tivo* *is* *good* *or* *not*. It's full of kludges exactly because it tries to carve out a notion that can only be determined on case-to-case basis and not by generic definition. And no, that's not a matter of bad wording in that section. I don't _care_ whether it breaks spirit, etc. - it's a fundamentally bad idea for completely independent reasons. Even if one thinks that tivo in particular ought to be sued into the ground at some point. Besides, it's fscking *pointless* for userland stuff. If you insist that e.g. glibc will infect by linking, you've just created a huge problem for any GPLv2 userland code, which will make all bad blood about kernel look trivial in comparison. If you do not, then you've lost all leverage anyway; kernel won't switch, libraries are OK, toolchain is obviously OK for building code with any license... what's left? The glorious /bin/cp? Sorry, it would work as usual, subject to open(2) not returning EACCES. Just as on any system. Just what is it going to prevent? Hell, they can slap selinux on the box, protect what they want to protect, use crypto-loop to prevent offline modifications of filesystem and hide the key in firmware. Either GPLv2 is sufficient in given case (and e.g. Alan decides to go after company in question), or you've at most created a moderate amount of work rewriting the checks they are doing into a different form (if that). Good job. In the meanwhile, you've got a load of ill-defined verbiage around installation instructions. I.e. a lovely fodder for potential abusers. Sod it. GPLv3, with your involvement in its development or not, sucks rocks, thanks to what you call anti-tivoization section. -- How many GPL spirits can dance on the end of a pin? - 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/