Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765451AbXFST5R (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:57:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764929AbXFST4v (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:56:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:48694 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764704AbXFST4u (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:56:50 -0400 To: "David Schwartz" Cc: "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:56:43 -0300 In-Reply-To: (David Schwartz's message of "Tue\, 19 Jun 2007 10\:50\:29 -0700") 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: 4793 Lines: 113 On Jun 19, 2007, "David Schwartz" wrote: >> On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" wrote: >> > Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a >> > further restriction? >> Because the user (under whose control the computer is, be it person or >> company) set up the root password herself? > Well, duh. TiVo, under whose control the software running on my Tivo is, set > up the signing key themself. *Someone* has to decide what software runs, the > GPL cannot rationally decide who that is because it's an > application-specific authorization decision. Right. All GPL can say is that you cannot impose further restrictions on how the user adapts the software, and since the user runs the software on that computer, that means you must not restrict the user's ability to upgrade or otherwise replace that software there, when you gave the user the software along with the computer. >> > However, "you can't load your modified sofware on *MY* hardware" is >> > not a further restriction. >> As long as you didn't hand me the hardware along with the software, >> for me to become a user of the software on that hardware, I agree. > This is, again, an argument that is totally alien to the GPL. No, it's not. It is intended to ensure that free software remains free for all its users. When you receive the software, you become a user. That's when you receive the rights, and that's what creates the obligation on the distributor to not impose restrictions on the freedoms, no matter by how means such restrictions could be legally or technically accomplished. > The idea that you have 'special' rights to the software on some > hardware but not others is simply insane. I agree, to some extent. It's not so much about the rights, but about the restrictions the vendor can impose on hardware. It's just that, for this particular hardware, as you say, the manufacturer has (or had) special rights. This means it can decide what software runs, whom it gives the hardware to, etc. However, by distributing software under the GPL, the vendor accepts the condition to not use any means whatsoever to impose restrictions on the recipient's exercise of the rights granted by the license by means of the distribution of the software. There's no reason to make the hardware special, or the right of authorization special, as a possible excuse to impose restrictions on the user. It amounts to just that: an attempt to excuse oneself from the condition of not imposing restrictions on the enjoyment of the freedoms. > The GPL is about being able to use the software on *ANY* hardware > for which you have the right to decide what software runs. Yes. And, per the "pass on all rights you have" spirit in the preamble, that translates into "no further restrictions" in the legal terms, the user *must* receive this right from the distributor of the software. Oh, but what if the distributor doens't have this right in the first place? Well, let's see... Either the distributor received the hardware with the software inside it, which means it should have received this right along with the software from whoever gave it the software, so it has this right, or it installed the software itself, which means it does have this right. In both cases. >> No, because the user is not becoming a user of the software on their >> own computers. Only in the computer that was shipped along with the >> software. > Yes, they are becoming a user. They might very well be using those > computers. This means they already were users there of those computers, just not necessarily of that software on those computers. And then, if they choose to copy and run the software on other computers where they are entitled to install software, they're free to do so, the vendor of that other piece of hardware must not impose restrictions on that either. > You can state what the GPLv3 does as many times as you want, but special > rights to particular pieces of hardware is *TOTALLY* alien to the spirit of > the GPL. I agree. That's the bug in GPLv2 that the anti-tivoization provision is trying to fix. > The GPL was always about equal rights to use the software in any > hardware. Exactly. Thank you. It finally sank in, it seems. -- 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/