Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760814AbXFTCDn (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758171AbXFTCDg (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:36 -0400 Received: from DELFT.AURA.CS.CMU.EDU ([128.2.206.88]:52976 "EHLO delft.aura.cs.cmu.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757973AbXFTCDf (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:02:46 -0400 To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , Bernd Schmidt , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Daniel Hazelton , 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: <20070620020246.GO14788@delft.aura.cs.cmu.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva , Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , Bernd Schmidt , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Daniel Hazelton , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <20070619012517.GL14788@delft.aura.cs.cmu.edu> <20070619200156.GA8812@delft.aura.cs.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Jan Harkes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4529 Lines: 97 On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:20:24PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 19, 2007, Jan Harkes wrote: > > and which will most likely make GPLv3 software unusable for various > > applications ranging from medical equipment to financial transaction > > systems (and probably others) > > Not unusable, except perhaps for the one example about credit card > terminals presented so far. > > > is there to just make it a _bit_ more inconvenient for vendors to > > implement a tivo-like scheme? > > I'm not sure they find it to be "just a bit". > > Point is to keep Free Software Free freedoms, and ROM doesn't make it > non-Free, so this provision is a means to ensure the compliance with > the wishes of users who want their software to not be used in ways > that make it non-Free. You keep referring to the four freedoms so I googled for them and found http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html So which of the freedoms did Tivo take away? * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. It doesn't seem to me they took away freedoms 1, 2 or 3. They released the source to any free software components and we can study, modify, redistribute, improve and release our improvements for the benefit of the whole community. btw. freedom 3 seems to be just repeating what we already got from freedoms 1 and 2. So the only one we could differ in opinion about is freedom 0. I would say that they in no way are limiting my use of the Linux kernel (which is the part I mostly care about) I can run the program for any purpose I see fit. What if I want to run mythtv on my PC at home? Tivo has no control whether or not I can do so even when my kernel contains any of their modification or improvements, so I claim that I in fact retained freedom 0. Your position (and I hope I will get this right), is that they should allow you to run the program for any purpose _on the hardware it is installed on_. Interpreted that way, the whole modification part doesn't even come into play, your freedom is taken away if you cannot even run your own software on top of the already installed kernel. This 'freedom 0' the way (I hope) you are interpreting it, could clearly never have been protected by the GPLv2 since it explicitly does not cover "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification" (GPLv2, term 0) However the GPLv3 does not seem to address this point either, the whole discussion in section 5 about user products and installation information completely misses the fact that none of the 'four freedoms' (which I assume formed the foundation for the license) is about allowing a user to install the program on some particular piece of hardware and that is exactly where I think all this anti-tivoization language is going wrong. It is clearly having a hard time pinning down the exact requirements for something that was not well defined in the first place. The real issue with Tivo isn't that they signed their kernel or their initrd, but that they do not allow you to use that kernel for any purpose, for instance run mythtv or a webserver on their unmodified kernel. Maybe the GPLv3 shouldn't try to talk about license keys or installation information and then heap on some exceptions for non-consumer devices or rom-based implementations and then some further legaleze patches to close the really obvious loopholes. Maybe it if it actually addressed the fact that you want to be able to use the distributed software for any purpose you see fit by allowing you to run your own applications on the kernel they distributed. I still believe they do allow me to use the program for any purpose as they can not limit my use of the Linux kernel whether or not my copy contains any of their contributions, so excuse my while I'll go enjoy some more of my freedom 0. Jan - 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/