Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761289AbXFSSWH (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:22:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759776AbXFSSV5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:21:57 -0400 Received: from mx.laposte.net ([81.255.54.16]:60366 "EHLO mx.laposte.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757882AbXFSSV4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:21:56 -0400 Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 From: Nicolas Mailhot To: davids@webmaster.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-S4nSouMgpdNkEH7GQyNB" Organization: Adresse perso Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:21:53 +0200 Message-Id: <1182277313.22568.9.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.11.4 (2.11.4-1.fc8) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1989 Lines: 54 --=-S4nSouMgpdNkEH7GQyNB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mardi 19 juin 2007 =C3=A0 10:50 -0700, David Schwartz a =C3=A9crit : > > > The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software > > > onto hardware > > > where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no, > > > you may not > > > modify the software running on this hardware". >=20 > > Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually > > supported your opinion. It's still an obvious alien insert. >=20 > It's simply shorter than saying "owners of the right or ability to decide > what software runs on that hardware". Right is not the same thing as ability. You have a technical ability which has been converted in a "right" which in turn is used as argument to reject GPLv3. But did the original conversion happened with the approval of everyone having rights to the result? I think not. All the "GPLv2 didn't think of DRM therefore DRM is GPLv2-protected" arguments make me sick. If tomorrow Ford starts mass+producing flying saucers will they be exempt from traffic regulations because current traffic regulations only consider cars? I think not. Yet the same argument is the core of most GPL v3 objections we've seen in this thread. --=20 Nicolas Mailhot --=-S4nSouMgpdNkEH7GQyNB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkZ4HrQACgkQI2bVKDsp8g1XZQCgxo/MkrA6fYo063mru5azcq9b GooAoNZYomfZ8QJbD+IRr/O9eTCvDxEg =5vtE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-S4nSouMgpdNkEH7GQyNB-- - 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/