Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755992AbXFQHiv (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:38:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752794AbXFQHin (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:38:43 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:34490 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752701AbXFQHim (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:38:42 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:38:20 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: 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 Message-ID: <20070617073820.GA6267@elte.hu> 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> <20070615214804.GC4996@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2083 Lines: 42 * 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. > > > uhm, so you claim that my argument is false, and your proof for that > > is a "non-upgradeable Tivo"?? That is a _great_ idea. Not > > being able to patch security holes. Not being able to fix bugs. Not > > being able to add new features. Makes complete sense. > > Oh, so you think patching security holes, fixing bugs and adding new > features are good ideas? What if you can't do it in your TiVo? this has to be one of the most bizarre arguments i've read in this thread as of date. Are you seriously questioning the notion that it's a good and legitimate idea for a hardware vendor to make the system fixable, patchable and upgradable? Are you seriously suggesting that for a hardware vendor to be able to offer such a solution, if they are under the unescapable restriction of content providers that the system itself must be tamper-proof, it should not be able to use a GPL-ed kernel at all? Because that is what your arguments lead to, and that is what the GPLv3 implements. In case you didnt notice: RMS _does not want the Tivo to use a GPLv3 kernel_, simple as that, and the GPLv3 achieves that. He wants Tivo to either to go out of business or to go to WinCE or some other OS. Did you ever think about the meaning of the "anti" word in the "anti-Tivo" expression? Hint: it's not some friendly suggestion of cooperation and working together ;) Ingo - 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/