On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:26:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Ah, well... In the case of "Windos" and other proprietary OS's I try > >> > to educate people and get them to switch. > >> > >> Good. So I presume you'd tell them to switch away from a > >> turned-proprietary GNU/Linux operating system as well, right? > > > > If that happened I'd be lost. I've tried the various BSD's and found they > > had problems with hardware support and getting a new version of the BSD > > kernel to compile and boot is something of a black art. > > > > The point is moot, though. It can never happen. > > Look again, it's already happened in the TiVO and other devices. > > The software that ships in them is no longer Free Software. >
In *YOUR* opinion and by *YOUR* definition of the term. Yes, I have seen some evidence that TiVO hasn't made some of the modifications they made public - doesn't mean that they won't, just it hasn't *YET* been done. (Not that I'm so omniscient I can say, definitively, whether they will or won't - or even that they haven't done it already). By my own definition replacement != modification. > > Consider a new microprocessor. > > Consider that Linux is ported to it by the microprocessor > manufacturer. > > Consider that the manufacturer only sells devices with that > microprocessor with TiVO-like locks. > > How exactly can you enjoy the freedoms WRT the GPLed software you got > from the manufacturer? The same as I would with a TiVO. I have the right to copy, modify, distribute and run the code - even if I can't do any of those things on the hardware the original binary operates on. > > > Now consider that you have a single computer, and that's built by TiVO. > > How exactly can you enjoy the freedoms the author meant you to have, > if the TiVO box won't run the program after you modify it? Simple: I don't buy it. Each and every piece of hardware I buy has a rather laborious research process before I actually spend the money on it. This makes it a certainty that I can use the hardware in the manner I want without problems like your hypothetical. Whats worse - forcing your morals and ideals on someone or giving them the same freedom of choice you had? Before you answer remember that that is *EXACTLY* what is being done with GPLv3. With GPLv2 and prior there was a simple guarantee that every "Licensee" had exactly the same rights. With GPLv3 you are forcing your ethics and morals on people - and isn't this exactly what the Roman Catholic church did during the Spanish Inquisition? > > If this "run modified copies on the same hardware you received the > > original on" *IS* the "spirit" of the license, then why isn't it > > stated anywhere before GPLv3? > > For the same reasons that the pro-DRM laws weren't mentioned before, > and the patent retaliation clauses weren't mention before: these > specific cases hadn't been studied, only the general idea of > respecting users' freedoms was. Bzzt! Wrong! The reason is that it wasn't necessary - at all. It still isn't, but a group that feels modification == replacement wants it to be, so it has suddenly become necessary. (Note that anti-DRM stuff *IS* good - DRM is part of an attempt by failing business models to stop the failure) > > I'll grant you that. But, at this point, where can I find a copy of > > the GPLv1 without having to dig around the net ? > > In the program you received under GPLv1. > > Hey, you said there was code under GPLv1.1 in the Linux tree. Then, > there should be a copy of GPLv1.1 in there, otherwise AFAICT the > distribution of that code is copyright infringement. IANAL. Ah, but I never said I had a GPLv1 program. If GPLv1 is still valid and available I should be able to find a copy of it *RIGHT* *NOW* to license a new project if I want to use GPLv1 as its license. So your logic is again flawed. > >> In contrast, your TiVO may get a software upgrade without your > >> permission that will take your rights away from that point on, and > >> there's very little you can do about it, other than unplugging it from > >> the network to avoid the upgrade if it's not too late already. > > > > And because its a device that connects to their network - and TiVO > > isn't a telecommunications company - they have the right to upgrade > > and configure the software inside however they want. (In the US at > > least) > > But do they have the right to not pass this right on, under the GPL? Yes, they do. It isn't a right they have as "copyright holders" - in fact, it isn't a part of their rights under the copyright at all. It's a part of their rights as the owners of the network. > >> > A lot of them would probably have private modifications that would > >> > never be distributed - and under the GPLv2 it is clear that you can > >> > keep modifications private as long as you don't distribute them. > >> > >> Likewise with GPLv3. > > > > I can see this, but will a company see this? > > In what sense does the GPLv3 make this particular point any less > obscure? Never claimed it was less obscure, just that you've usually got a board-room filled with middle-aged men that might have problems agreeing that it is a clear-cut case. > > True. But that doesn't save them from lawsuits trying to force them > > to obey the terms of the new revision even though they received the > > software under an earlier version. > > Nothing saves anyone from silly lawsuits. This one would likely be > laughed out of court in no time. Anyone worried about this should > also be concerned about their neighbor suing them for copyright > infringment every time they set their stereo loud enough for the > neighbors to listen and be annoyed. (Hint: only the copyright holder > would stand a chance of winning such a lawsuit) Yes, but the fact that it would cost money to get the suit dropped is a problem. > >> > (and don't try to argue that even though those modifications are > >> > truly private (to the company) they should be released anyway to > >> > comply with the "spirit" of the license. It is made clear that it > >> > isn't by the text of the license itself) > >> > >> How could you possibly come to the conclusion that forcing anyone to > >> release private modifications would be in compliance with the spirit > >> of the license? can != must > > > > I was trying to be sarcastic and inject a little humor here. Guess I > > should have used the old <sarcasm> tag :) > > Aah. I'm not sure I'd have understood it either. > > >> >> > Why should I repeat Linus' explanation of the ways that GPLv3 > >> >> > violates the spirit of GPLv2? > >> >> > >> >> Don't worry about parrotting here, he hasn't provided that > >> >> explanation yet ;-) Please give it a try. > >> > > >> > But he has. Whether you have accepted that his explanations are > >> > valid or not doesn't change the fact. > >> > >> His explanation is based on a reading of the license that doesn't > >> match what its authors meant. I guess the authors know better what > >> they meant the spirit of the license to be than someone else who > >> studied it a lot but that until very recently couldn't even tell the > >> spirit from the legal terms. > > > > And his interpretation is no less valid than that of anyone else. In > > fact, after a recent conversation with a couple of lawyers that I > > know, I can state that his interpretation isn't that far off from > > theirs. > > Interpretation as applied to the legal terms, yes. As for the spirit > of the license, the authors ought to know better than anyone else what > they meant. Sure, other interpretations might lead to different > understandings as to what the readers *think* it means, but that > doesn't change what it was *intended* to mean. Doesn't matter what the author intended it to mean - at all. What matters is how its interpreted when/if it shows up in court. This can be seen *ALL* the time with laws across the globe. In the US there is this thing called the "RICO" Laws- "Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organization" - that give the government the ability to seize anything that is deemed a "profit of drug sales" or of a "Criminal Organization". It has been used for that purpose, but its interpretation has caused it to be used to seize money that has had no source in either. > > Then you're lucky. I've had a lot of people say something similar to the > > following: "Oh, I've heard about that. So which version of the GNU-Linux > > kernel are you running?" > > Oh my. That's indeed unfortunate and unfair. > > > As I've stated before - I can find nothing in the history of the GPL or > > the FSF that makes the "on the same hardware" requirement clear and part > > of the "spirit" of "Free Software". > > Put the considerations above, about a single computer or a > uniformly-limited computing platform, and you'll see that this "on the > same hardware" argument is just a means to deny people freedom. If I > could stop you from running modified versions on one piece of > hardware, then I could on two, and 3, and then soon it's all of them, > and we're back to square zero in terms of freedom. > > >> > What I won't do is release whatever tools and such that are needed to > >> > make the hardware run a different version of the kernel. Why? Because: > >> > the hardware was designed so that a specific version of the kernel > >> > runs without problems, there is hardware that is very picky and > >> > running a customized kernel could cause that hardware to fail, etc... > >> > >> Why do you care? It's no longer your hardware, it's theirs. > > > > Legal requirements in some countries that require manufacturers to > > provide support for their product for a period of time after it has been > > purchased. > > If you replace a component in the hardware, are you still required to > provide support or offer warranty? Why should this be different just > because it's a software component? Artificial distinctions in the law DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
