Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:35:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release > > improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge > > those improvements if I want to. > > Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and > makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to > accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the > GPLv3? Doesn't matter at all. GPLv3 requires that any project incorporating GPLv3 code be licensed under the GPLv3. Linus is, as he has shown, intelligent enough to know this. The *second* he actually accepted GPLv3 code into the kernel it would either be "change the license or start getting lawsuits for breach of the terms of the GPLv3". > > Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT! By > > saying that I shouldn't accept contributions like that, you just > > INVALIDATED the whole point of the license in the first place! > > I understand. I assumed you had some trust that people would abide by > your wish to permit TiVOization, and that authors of modifications > were entitled to make "whatever restrictions they wanted" on their > code. > > Pardon me if I think your position is at least somewhat incoherent. > Can you help me make sense of it? You are making a distinction between "part" and "whole". When separate from the kernel the code can have whatever restrictions the creator pleases. If he has said "I want this in the "official" Linux Kernel" (ie: I want this in Linus' Linux Kernel source tree) then the creator of the code has stated a willingness to abide by Linus' decision about the whole work. It's a moot point, though. The Linux Kernel is licensed under GPLv2, which means that *all* code in it has to be under the same license *and* that no code in it can have any restrictions *NOT* in the GPLv2. 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's an addiction. I'm not proud. I guess this makes it two of us :-( > They were basically forced to add lockdown by the content vendors. They can do that. They will still be able to do that with v3. All they have to do is to throw away the keys that enable themselves to modify the code further. > For example, I'd rather have some GPLv2'd DVD player software that does > *not* come with a de-css key libdvdread and libdvdcss are separate packages. > So the GPLv3 actually _hinders_ people who might otherwise help the > community from helping, by making the license so strict that those people > (who are nice people, but have their options limited by stupid laws and > regulations) cannot use the GPLv3. Just like v2 hinders their many customers. Are you so sure v2 is better in this regard? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative work. Modification does. Thanks. Good point. This convinces me that this doesn't work as a legal argument under copyright. I still stand by my understanding that this restriction violates the spirit of the license. But since this elusive "spirit" is subject to everybody's interpretation of the preamble, you must surely admit that it remains just a matter of opinion ;) It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the right to install new versions on the device Actually, no. They withhold the right to run versions that they don't authorize themselves. On that particular piece of hw, yes. But who's granted you the right to *run* your modified copy *there* in the first place? GPLv2 explicitly steers clear of anything "other than copying, distribution and modification". Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobody had thought of technical measures to stop people from running modified copies of software. At least nobody involved in GPLv2, AFAIK. The landscape has changed, and GPLv3 is meant to defend this freedom that was taken for granted. Then you agree that GPLv2 does not protect your freedom (taken for granted) to run a modified copy on any particular device, or am I misreading? What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your editor? Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;) Sorry, I really don't follow. Both versions of the kernel binary also started from a common source ancestor. Were you trying to make a distinction on these grounds? Exactly: they have a common ancestor, they are both derived from it. But there's no ancestry relationship *between* them (unlike your edited file example) so you cannot argue that one is a modification of the other. Hence, Tivo is not really *modifying* the copies it distributes with the device - they're *installing* brand new copies instead. They also choose not to offer everybody the same privilege :-| Does this go against the intent of the GPLv2 authors? Probably. Does it go against the letter of GPLv2? Apparently not. Does it go against your/some people's interpretation of the GPL "spirit"? Obviously. Does it go against everybody's interpretation? Obviously not. --- fm - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:18:12 Carlo Wood wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:09:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux. > > [...] > > > I'm not going to bother discussing this any more. You don't seem to > > respect my right to choose the license for my own code. > > This is the main reason I dislike GPLwhatever: there is no notion > of "orginal author". You might have written 99% of the code, that > doesn't matter. You have no rights whatsoever once you release > something under the GPL (no more than ANYOne else). You mean if the original author gets hit by a bus and their estate gets sold to SCO they can't revoke our rights to the code? How is this a down side? And you do have more rights than anyone else: as the copyright holder you can issue other licenses, and you have standing to sue to enforce the code. (If nobody else has a copyright on the code, they don't have standing to sue to enforce the license terms.) (Right now, nobody EXCEPT the FSF has the right to sue somebody to enforce the license terms on something like gcc. Do you find that a comforting thought?) Rob -- "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:55 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they > > make the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm not > > going to get into arguments over whether kernel modules are "derivative > > works" or not, since those invariably end up with "They aren't, even > > though we think they should be") > > Who cares about whether the module is a derivative work? That's only > relevant when you distribute the module as a separate work. When you > ship a combined work including both the kernel and the module in > question, it's a _whole_ lot easier to interpret the GPL. Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE* distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it both ways. If the module is distributed *with* the kernel *SOURCE* then it doesn't matter if it's a derivative work or not, because it becomes covered by the kernels license. If it's distributed with the kernel *binaries* then it is covered by its own license. In that case the only reason you'd have a right to the source is if the module is considered a "derivative work". 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> > So let's look at that "section 6" that you talk about, and quote the >> > relevant parts, will we: >> > >> >You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' >> >exercise of the rights granted herein. >> > >> > and then let's look at Red Hat sending me a CD-ROM or a DVD. >> > >> > Now, Red Hat clearly *did* "further restrict" my rights as it pertains TO >> > THAT COPY ON THE CD-ROM! I cannot change it! Waa waa waa! I'll sue your >> > sorry ass off! >> >> Red Hat is not stopping you from making changes. The media is, and >> that's not something Red Hat can control. > TiVO isn't stopping you from making changes - the *media* is. TiVO made it so, that's the difference. I'll give you that it's not so much about making changes per se, or even installing them, as it is about running the modified versions for any purpose. >> Compare this with the TiVO. TiVO *designs* the thing such that it can >> still make changes, but customers can't. >> That's the difference. > No, it isn't. Look at any motherboard. The Bios on the last three or four > motherboards I've purchased check for a digital signature on the Bios > updates. The motherboard manufacturer can make changes, but the customer > can't. Is there any difference? Nope. Is the BIOS code under the GPL? > The fact is that claiming it was "the spirit" doesn't matter at all > - this isn't philosophy you're arguing, its *LAW*, and in law, if it > isn't clearly spelled out, it doesn't exist. That's exactly what makes for the difference between the spirit and the precise legal terms, and why GPLv3 is fixing these divergences. > And where does it say that you even have the right to run the "work based on > the Program", or even a self-compiled copy of the "verbatim copy of the code" > on any given piece of hardware? It doesn't. The license can't demand the software, or modified versions thereof, to run. The only thing it can demand is that licensees don't impose restrictions on others' abilities to do so. >> > But by "the software", the license is not talking about a particular >> > *copy* of the software, it's talking about the software IN THE ABSTRACT. >> >> Please read it again. > Done. 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it > If this has been the "intent and spirit" of the license from the > beginning, it should be there somewhere. I think you're missing what 'spirit' means. It's guidance, it's not the legal terms. And it's precisely because the implementation (the legal terms) failed to meet that design (the spirit, encoded in the preamble) that the license needs patching. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:39:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work > of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have > you) and refraining from providing the corresponding sources to that > derived work (the key and the signature "build scripts"), I still > think this specific case is a violation of the letter of the GPLv2, > even if the FSF doesn't take this position. Not entirely correct. If TiVO is making a change to the binary to include the signature, then it *could* be considered a derivative work. If the signature is stored in another place - say a bit of Flash or a separate file on the disc - then there is no way for it to be considered a derivative work. (Under US law, IIRC and I I've interpreted it (and the related cases) properly then the change would have to be to the source of the program for it to be considered a "derivative". But, as you say often and I should make clear myself, IANAL) > > > It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the > > right to install new versions on the device > > Actually, no. They withhold the right to run versions that they don't > authorize themselves. And this is relevant to a software license in which way? In particular how is this relevant to the GPL, which has always *only* guaranteed access to the source if you have access to the binary, the right to distribute your own versions and the right to modify the code. Since the "right to run code" was never guaranteed it *cannot* be a violation. It might be in conflict with what RMS intended when he wrote the first version of the GPL and in conflict with the intent of the people that contributed to GPLv2 but that doesn't matter. However, I will not use (or recommend) the GPLv3 in its current form because I feel it makes unnecessary restrictions. The fact that you have to "allow additional rights" to make it equal to the GPLv2 makes a functional (and spiritual) difference to me. (Why? Because I'm opposed to "In order to protect freedom X we have to restrict freedom Y. Its happening in the US *RIGHT* *NOW* and I have been doing what I can to fight that. Now the same faulty logic is being applied by the FSF with GPLv3) > Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an > issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control > that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobody had thought of > technical measures to stop people from running modified copies of > software. At least nobody involved in GPLv2, AFAIK. Why isn't it in the US? Because the binary form of a program does not and cannot have a separate copyright than the source code. Since it is the *SOURCE* that is actually copyright (mechanical translation cannot create a new work, only a new form of an already copyrighted work) guaranteeing the "right to run" is pointless. And you are wrong about that "Nobody thought of it" thing - what you mean is that "Nobody that had a hand in drafting and ratifying the GPLv2 thought of it". The "NSA Guidelines for Trusted Systems" (aka "The Orange Book") talks about methods of preventing the execution of code. What you and the rest of the FSF is doing in response to "tivoization" is saying "we don't care if it wasn't designed to do X, we want to be able to make it do that anyway *AND* the manufacturer has to help us do it". There is no legal way for you to make that demand of a hardware manufacturer. Instead you've gone with the only legal recourse - saying "If you want to use my copyrighted work under license X, you have to do Y". I have no problem with that, and if the FSF wants that, it's fine by me. But, as I said, I could care less where and/or if something I release under the GPL is used. This makes the GPLv2 perfect for me. > The landscape has changed, and GPLv3 is meant to defend this freedom > that was taken for granted. > > > they never do (and really never could) "modify" the physical copy on > > your device (which is your main argument). > > Qualifying it as the main argument is a bit of an exaggeration. I > have a number of different arguments. The one about incomplete > sources is the most solid IMHO. Yes, it is. But your argument about the TiVO is "they can modify the copy on it but I can't". Hence it is your main argument. And remember, replace != modify. > >> What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your > >> editor? > > > > Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact > > copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;) > > Sorry, I really don't follow. Both versions of the kernel binary also > started from a common source ancestor. Were you trying to make a > distinction on these grounds? No. He was making a distinction that I have seen made a number of times. That is, a copy of a copyright work in a computers RAM is a *distinct* copy, separate fro
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now the FSF is coming along and being Darth Vader: "I am altering > the bargain. Pray I don't alter it any further." 1) it can't possibly do that. the Linux license is something that only the Linux developers can decide. 2) I don't know how the FSF is approaching the Linux developers, but what I've been personally trying to do in this infinite thread was mainly to set the record straight that v3 did not change the spirit of the license, like some have claimed. 3) Another thing I've tried to do was to try to figure out why Linux developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals. I must admit I failed. The presented reasons don't seem to distinguish v2 from v3 to me, or rather make v3 sound better. It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without achieving any of my goals. I hope it was at least useful or enlightening to some. I'll now try to step out of the discussion, but I guess I'm just as addicted to flames. I don't see that it's getting anywhere, and I don't particularly enjoy the name calling. And then, I was politely invited to go away... -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:20:35PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote: > Why do you keep saying "upgraded" to GPLv3? How is it an improvement to move > from a small, simple, elegant, and tested implementation to something that's > more complicated, less elegant, less coherent, totally untested, and full of > numerous special cases? Ahhh, but so much more entreprisy. I never had realized before that the DailyWTF applied to licenses too. OG. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
* Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty > > confused about how software licenses work. > > There is no such thing as a software licence. It is a copyright > licence. a "software license" is a common shortcut for "copyright license for copies of software works". It's a commonly used phrase. In fact it is used by the FSF itself too: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html "To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words." > > the GPL applies to software. It is a software license. > > You can GPL a new graphical logo you painted on your toilet seat, you > can GPL hardware designs. It might not be a good licence for either > but it is a valid licence. yeah - the GPL can be applied to most types of works recognized by copyright law. > > the Tivo box is a piece of hardware. > > A Tivo box is a collection of literary works protected by copyright, > designs protected by design patents and copyright, names and logos > protected by trademarks, functionalities protected by patents and many > more things. These are the things that restrict what I may do with it > and how I may treat it. The collection of bits of metal and sand > aren't really of relevance in terms of licencing. If you are into technicalities then you fail to achieve that "rigorous base" by a wide margin. The Tivo box is not "a collection of literary works", it is a piece of matter, that also happens to contain fixated copies of literary (and other) works. The Tivo box is just one copy of those works - it is not "a collection of literary works". (Only if there was just a single Tivo box on the planet then could that box itself be meaningfully called a collection of works - a single and unique "master copy" of a work can be called the work itself.) and that distinction, although fine, is very important. Look at GPLv2 section 0: " 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. " the work is not the copy! The work is a more 'abstract' entity. The word "copyright" comes straight from that: the right to create specific copies of the work. And that's another reason why it's nonsensical to suggest that somehow the GPLv2 gives us the right to influence the hardware environment that the copy of the kernel got fixated into. We dont. ( unless that hardware environment too is a copy of a GPL-ed work or it is a copy of a work that is a modification of or derives from a GPL-ed work - but in the Tivo case it isnt. It's a collection of copies of works and derivation does not "jump" from the harddisk to the hardware. ) More down the technicalities road: the Tivo box also contains many items that are not copies of works protected by copyright: common types of screws that are not original forms of expression that are creative enough enough to gain copyright protection. Or numbers painted on various places. Or computer-originated random output. Copies of works that have entered the public domain and thus are not under the scope of copyright protection. Neither is the Tivo box "collection of functionalities protected by patents", if then it is an embodiment of a method and apparatus, which invention is under patent protection (there are other types of patents as well), or which invention might not be under patent protection but have a patent application pending. (which might or might not issue at the end of the patent application process.) > > a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader, > > a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free software bits > > are available for download. > > Except the keys - which may nor may not be required depending upon how a > court (not a mailing list) interprets the phrases > > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it" i think it is clear what is intended with this section: that for example using automatic tools to strip out comments and obfuscating the source code does not fly, because what matters is the _form of the software_ the developer usually makes his modifications under. So this in essence defines the scope of the actual source code that must be made available so that it works on a general purpose computer, not the specific hardware environment under which the developer operates. so i believe it is a ... fairly creative bending of the wording of this section to attempt to extend it to the hardware environment. You dont get my ssh keys either [*] that i use on my test-boxes, and those test boxes are very much part of the preferred way for me to p
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:32:08 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: >> > They let you have the code and make changes to it, >> >> Not to the software installed in the device. > So now you want access to all the software that is installed in > their device? What's under the GPL. > If you buy one of Google's Search Appliance, are you expecting to > allow you to make changes to the software that is installed on that > device? Arguably, if I purchased the device, I ought to be entitled to make changes to it, yes. But that's a distraction I'd rather not get into ATM. > They then make the all the changes to the Linux Kernel available to > their end users under the same terms that they got from the Linux > kernel developers. > What freedom did they take away? They prevent the user from installing and running modified versions of the program on the box, while they can still do it themselves on the same box. I guess I must have repeated this at least a dozen times in this thread, so I'll just refrain from repeating this point from now on. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel, > > the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is > > not compatible with v2. > > I understand this very well. You'd have to get the kernel upgraded to > GPLv3 in order to accept the contribution. Why do you keep saying "upgraded" to GPLv3? How is it an improvement to move from a small, simple, elegant, and tested implementation to something that's more complicated, less elegant, less coherent, totally untested, and full of numerous special cases? Bumping a version number is not in indicator of quality, and spending over twice as much text to express the same legal principles is not an improvement. So far, you haven't brought up a single reason to use v3 except for a higher version number. (Not that I'm asking you to.) You've just tried to argue that it isn't WORSE than the existing license. Rob -- "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:27:27 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or > > other GPL'd software installed and place limits such that only > > people that have purchased that hardware have access to the > > "modified" source running on the device are following the letter, > > and the spirit, of the GPL. > > WAIT, WAIT, THAT'S... :-) > > > Before you start yelling I'm wrong, think about it this way: they > > make the source available to the people that they've given binary > > versions to, and there is nothing stopping one of those people from > > making the source available to the rest of the world. > > The *only* in your sentence betrayed you. > > If they place the limits such that nobody else can access the sources, > they're in violation of the license. Nope. There is *NO* requirement *ANYWHERE* in the GPL, no matter the version, that says you have to *DISTRIBUTE* the source to *ANYONE* except those that you have given a binary to. Go read the licenses. > > If they merely refrain from distributing the sources to others, but > still enable the recipients to do so, this is not a violation of the > license. Exactly what I said. "only the people that have purchased the hardware have access to the modified sources" That is *EXACTLY* what a number of companies have done - Acer (yes, the laptop company) has done that. They sell laptops running Linux, but unless you have purchased one of them you can't download the sources (or even replacement binaries) for the version of linux they put on their machines. (From Acer, that is) However, as I also said, there is nothing stopping one of those people from making those "modified sources" available to the rest of the world. (I have yet to find someone that has done that with the Acer specific stuff, but...) > But then IANAL. > > > *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to > > everyone - just to those that get the binaries. > > Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus' > theory of tit-for-tat falls apart. Yes, it does. However, the practicality is that there is nothing *stopping* the person upstream from getting a copy of the source and incorporating the modifications they contain in a new version. 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:19:51 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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? > > I fail to see the distinction you're making between GPLv2 and GPLv3. > AFAICT, with GPLv3, there still is a simple guarantee that every > licensee has exactly the same rights. > > Sure, GPLv3 follows the spirit of the GPLs more strictly than GPLv2 > possibly could. How is that "forcing ethics and morals" any more than > GPLv2 was? Because GPLv2 doesn't enforce limitations on the hardware a GPL'd work can be put on. It doesn't make artificial distinctions between "Commercial", "Industrial" and "User". What it does is *ATTEMPT* to ensure that nobody receiving a copy of a GPL'd work has the same rights as any other person that gets a copy. GPLv3 gives people *additional* rights beyond those. In the "TiVO" case it forces somebody releasing a HW platform to grant *additional* rights if they are going to use software covered by the GPLv3. The reason for forcing the giving of those additional rights is "the FSF and GPLv3 committees think that what TiVO did is 'morally and ethically' wrong, so were are enforcing our morals and ethics". Note that these are the rights that TiVO got from the GPLv2: 1) The ability to make copies of Linux 2) The ability to modify Linux 3) The ability to distribute Linux *NOTE* that those are the rights *GUARANTEED* by the GPL - despite what anyone *WISHES* it to say, or what the "Intent" or "Spirit" of the license may be, those are the only guaranteed rights. In shipping their devices with an "object code" version of Linux on them they exercised their right to perform such a distribution, granted under section 3 of the GPLv2. They made modifications to the Linux so it functioned properly on their devices, as allowed by the GPL. They have made numerous copies of Linux, as allowed by the GPL. And, as required by the GPLv2, they made the source code form of their changes available. In fact, they went beyond the requirements of the GPL (which only requires you make the source available to people you have given an "object code" version to) in making it fully available to the public *AND* in contributing those changes back to Linux. What rights did they give to "downstream" recipients of the "object code" version? *EXACTLY* those they received from the GPLv2. What rights do they have as creators of a *PROPRIETARY* hardware platform: 1) The right to restrict what programs it will run 2) The right to update it as they choose, even if it makes it incompatible with earlier versions Does the GPL *require* them to give up those rights? Version 3 does, but not any earlier version. Why does version 3 do this? Because one or more of the people behind its design and language feel that executing a piece of software on any given hardware platform automatically entitles them to all rights to the hardware that the creator of the hardware has. > > Ah, but I never said I had a GPLv1 program. > > I thought you had a copy of Linux and, per what you'd said before, > there was GPLv1 code in it. I was just trying to make it easy for > you. > > > 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. > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying-1.0.html Ah, see, I didn't even know it was still there. I hadn't seen it in a complete form anywhere. > >> > 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. > > How about the "no further restrictions" bit? As applies to the software. The rights that the GPL has (historically) granted are what I stated above. TiVO, and companies like them, are *NOT* imposing any restrictions on rights granted under GPLv2 and prior. Remember, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself: replace != modify > > 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. > > > > Yes, but the fact that it would cost money to get the suit dropped is a > > problem. > > Again, how are these arguments against GPLv3? They apply equally to > any other license, including GPLv2. Granted. But GPLv2
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:25:19PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel >> > changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such >> > the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled. >> >> Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me >> -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs, >> outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have >> the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even >> available in batches that small. >> > > So your objection here is that one needs additional resources to do > excersise their rights. Well, what about spending time and money to > get education to be able to do programming work? Being able to > understand C and hardware, etc is also an additional restriction > imposed on an average person. Do you advocate that every copy of GPL > program should be accompanied with an engineer who would explain how > it all works? Yes please. Can she be spunky as well? ta. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:14:21AM -0400, Robin Getz wrote: > - gambling devices - which must have their software certified by various > government agencies - to make sure that the odds are known, and there are no > backdoors, and consumers don't get screwed - the manufacture can not allow > non-certified software to be loaded on it. If these are in a hotel - where > various people live - is that considered "incorporation into a dwelling"? > > Not wanting to start a debate about the morality of being involved in the > gambling industry - (if the statically challenged are giving the government > money to keep my taxes down, I am mostly OK with it) - but I'm not "happy" > thinking that someone can ledgistate restrictions on embedded OS choice, just > because it must be verified by a third party. Why not go really controversial and dive straight in with "voting machines". There's a whole 'nother can of worms. Bron. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:42 David Schwartz wrote: > I don't know who you are talking to or what you are talking about. I > haven't seen anybody doing what you claim in this thread or anywhere else > and I certainly am not. I'm asking what is the _point_ of the discussion? Linux, the project, is available under GPLv2 only. It is not available under GPLv3, and its maintainers (both Linus, his lieutenants, and numerous other contributors) have expressed an explicit desire NOT to license it as such. So what are the people talking about GPLv3 trying to accomplish? Are they: A) Trying to unanimously change the mind of Linus, his lieutentants, and all the other contributors who have spoken up in favor of GPLv2 only, so that future versions of Linux grew a new license? (Doesn't matter if this new license is GPlv3, MPL, or BSD. It's a new license Linux is not currently distributed under. Bits of Linux are separately distributed under other licenses such as BSD, but Linux is not and won't be any time soon.) B) Proposing the creation of a fork of Linux which identifies and replaces all the code that can't be licensed under GPLv3? C) Moving to another codebase (Solaris? The Hurd) and trying to identify Linux code that can be ported to that other OS under another license? D) Blowing smoke to no actual purpose? Right now, it's looking like D. Is there an E that I'm not seeing? Rob - 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/
RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> Perhaps the FSF will in future remember to pack a copy of the GPL in each > of its md5sum files on the mirror if this is a derivative work, and > modify the bittorrent protocol to include a copy of the GPL in the seed > files 8) > > Alan I realize you're joking, but for the benefit of anyone who might not understand how this works: A derivative work must, first and foremost, be a work. If it's not a work, it's not a derivative work because a derivative work is a type of work. Aggregations of multiple works, when that aggregation is performed in an automated way, are not works. Even if I compile and link a bunch of source code, provided there is no creative input in the compile and link process, the result is not a work for copyright purposes. It is simply an aggregate of the bits of source code. The gist of a compilation or derivative work is the creative selection and modification process. If someone argues that a program is a derivative work of a header file it was compiled with, he is probably just being sloppy. The resulting executable contains the header file combines with other works. Of course, a source code file that is designed based on the contents of a header file may be a derivative work of that header file, but that would be because the human who wrote the source code file used bits of the header file in the source code itself. It would not be because the compiler combined them -- such an automated combination has no creative input and so cannot produce a work, and so cannot produce a derivative work. This is grossly oversimplified, but should give you the idea. DS - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote: > > But then the paragraph from COPYING kicks in, reading: Read the COPYING file more closely, and realize that "the Program" has always specified a version number of this license. It used to include it just by virtue of having the COPYING file *itself* be included (and that's v2), but since some people felt that was unclear, the COPYING file has this language pretty visibly at the top: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > Any, 'any version' probably includes version 3 as well. Not for the kernel. Exactly because the kernel _does_ specify the version. So the sequence you quoted is a non-issue. In other words: any file that does not *explicitly* say that it's "v2 or later" is v2 only. Linus - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:14:09 Sean wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT) > > Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and > > not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism > > that was - and still is - the FSF. The FSF always makes for this horrible > > "you're with us, or you're against us" black-and-white mentality, where > > there are "evil" companies (Tivo) and "good" companies (although I dunno > > if the FSF really sees anybody as truly "good"). > > Linus, > > If you really believe that then why didn't you choose a BSD license > for Linux? BSD licenses encourage forking. Specifically, if a BSD-licensed project becomes significantly commercially valuable, there's an incentive for companies to hire your developers away to work on a proprietary fork. When Sun Microsystems started up in 1982, they hired away Bill Joy to work on a closed version of BSD (SunOS). When Berkeley shut down the CSRG, BSDi hired those developers to work on another closed source BSD variant. More recently, Apple hired people like Jordan Hubbard away from FreeBSD to do yet another fork: MacOS X. The loss of people hurts the original project. With BSD licensed code, companies can say "work on the codebase you love as a day job, and you can still work on the open version at night". Then work them 90 hours/week. Or even "we'll release this code open source after we can't sell it anymore, a year or two from now". And then the deadline never comes, or the codebase is irrelevant by then, or too far diverged to merge. You won't get all the developers, but you'll get enough to cost the open project momentum. BSD is 30 years old and the free version is still a pale shadow of its proprietary forks like MacOS X or the bits of it Windows incorporated. Now think about trying to do that to a GPL project. If you hire the developers away, they have to work on a _different_ codebase. Much less compelling, both for the hirer and the hiree. If you think Linux is compelling enough to commercialize, you MUST do so within the terms of the GPL or not do it at all. You can't do a closed fork and distribute the result. Maybe this means companies aren't as quick to jump on the bandwagon trying to commercialize it, but the project can then grow larger without interference until commercial participation _is_ compelling, on its own merits, despite being unable to corner the market on it. > Instead you chose a license which enforced the so called tit-for-tat > policy you think is fair. But people who prefer the BSD license may > think you're a moron for forcing your political agenda (ie. tit-for-tat) > on users of your code. It's not political, it's pragmatic. GPLv2 has tangible benefits for project maintainers. > The point of all that being, you _do_ believe > in enforcing restrictions or you wouldn't like the GPL v2. > > So you draw the line of "fairness" and belief that people will > do-the-right-thing somewhere short of the BSD license. Why is it > so hard then to accept that the FSF draws the line short of the > GPLv2 after having gained practical experience with it > since its release? Nobody objects to the FSF putting out new licenses if it changes its mind about what it wants to do. They object to it pestering those of us continuing to use the old license because we prefer it to the new one. The FSF _does_ draw the line in a different place than the Linux developers. Hence the Linux developers don't want to use the new license, they prefer the old one from back before Stallman went insane. They have that right, and Stallman trying to deny them that right in the name of "freedom" is deeply ironic. > You can argue till the cows come home the belief that _your_ > restrictions are more fair, moral and reasonable than theirs. It's not the FSF's code being licensed. It's the Linux developers' code being licensed. The people who write the code get to choose the license. > But at the end of the day it's all just a matter of opinion about > what constitutes fair and reasonable. Why is Linus's opinion less valuable than Stallman's when it comes to the license under which the project Linus founded, and which Linus still maintains, is distributed? > You think its a fair trade > that you get code back, the FSF think its fair that people can hack > and run the code anywhere its used.. It all comes down to the > author of the code getting to attach whatever restrictions they > choose. Exactly. And Linus likes GPLv2. As do I. > Sean Rob - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> Like, they can release/sell the whole thing under some arbitrary > other license at their choice. But once you license it with the GPLv2, > then you can't stop anyone else (who got it under that license) from > using the code under that license anymore, as such it doesn't matter that > you are the original author. This is true of most licences. Ask musicians about trying to get their music back from a record company. > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > * (at your option) any later version. > > I might be wrong, but I always thought that that meant that John Doe > is free to redistribute the software under version 3 of the License, > as published by the FSF. For those marked parts yes - thats the authors choice. Some of the kernel is dual licensed BSD even so you can use that bit for all sorts of stuff. Again authors choice, some authors wanted to share code between Linux and other projects. I believe you can buy proprietary licenses to reiserfs too. Some authors like GPLv2 or later, some don't trust the FSF, some will decide once GPLv3 is out, some couldn't care etc.. as the kernel doesn't do copyright assignment all these wishes are respected and that is how it should be. Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:09:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux. > [...] >> I'm not going to bother discussing this any more. You don't seem to >> respect my right to choose the license for my own code. > This is the main reason I dislike GPLwhatever: there is no notion > of "orginal author". You might have written 99% of the code, that > doesn't matter. You have no rights whatsoever once you release > something under the GPL (no more than ANYOne else). You retain the copyright, and in particular the right to relicense. Only if you make the mistake of including the "or any later version" phrase do you allow others to redistribute the work under a different version of the GPL. Although this provision may seem slightly convenient to authors, its effect is to grant a very large amount of relicensing permission to the FSF. It almost certainly doesn't make sense to place that much trust in a single organization. > The GPL is nice for the community, and for the users - but very, > very bad towards it's authors (taking all and every right you might > have). If John Doe wants to re-release the whole kernel under > GPLv3, then all he needs is a website and some bandwidth. Well, he also needs one tiny little extra thing: the permission of every copyright holder in Linux. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nope. Merely stating a distinction. Either a device is distributed, like the > common PC, that is designed for the user to change and update the software > on, or, like the PS2 it isn't designed for that. If I find a way to update my > PS2 to run Linux and find that it doesn't want to start the "Linux Firmware" > because I'm lacking a signing key... > > In the case of a device that internally runs Linux (or any other GPL'd > software) and wasn't designed for the end-user to change the software running > on it then the signing keys aren't part of the source. OTOH, if I sell a PC > running Linux that requires the kernel be signed then the signing keys *are* > part of the source, since a PC is designed for the end-user to change the > software running on it. Come on, GPL is software licence, the hardware isn't part of the equation. One can argue that keys are or aren't part of the source (= that digital signature is or isn't part of the executable) but it's totally independent of any hardware and its purpose. For example, it doesn't matter if the signature is merely for checking file integrity (and any signature would do) or if it's for restricting users from running something. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:42:44 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as > >> > you see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for > >> > me to do with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source > >> > code. > >> > > >> > How hard is that to accept? > >> > >> Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the > >> GPL says. > > > > What part of the word "expect" did you not understand? > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/24/246 > > It asks everybody - regardless of circumstance - for the same thing. > It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to > be given back to the common good. You can use the end result any > way you want (and if you want to use it for "bad" things, be my > guest), but we ask the same exact thing of everybody - give your > modifications back. > > > And whats your point here anyway? > > The the GPL doesn't do that. It encourages that. But what it asks > for is respect for the freedoms it defends WRT the software licensed > under it. Logical fallacy. The two statements are semantically equivalent, and the draw and allure of "Open Source" is that the software continually gets better at doing its job, grows more features, etc... *ALL* because the modifications *DO* get "given back". Because it is *VERY* hard to keep a modification *PRIVATE* and avoid the "distribution" clauses of the GPL the belief that it "doesn't require giving changes back" is technically and literally true, but is false in practice. 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> >>> Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and >>> makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to >>> accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the >>> GPLv3? >> You *cannot* make GPLv3-only contributions to the kernel. > I can make improvements to GPLv2+ files under GPLv3 (or rather will, > after GPLv3 is published). You can do that, but you won't be able to distribute those changes along with the rest of the kernel. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused > about how software licenses work. There is no such thing as a software licence. It is a copyright licence. > the GPL applies to software. It is a software license. You can GPL a new graphical logo you painted on your toilet seat, you can GPL hardware designs. It might not be a good licence for either but it is a valid licence. > the Tivo box is a piece of hardware. A Tivo box is a collection of literary works protected by copyright, designs protected by design patents and copyright, names and logos protected by trademarks, functionalities protected by patents and many more things. These are the things that restrict what I may do with it and how I may treat it. The collection of bits of metal and sand aren't really of relevance in terms of licencing. If it was a generic housebrick with none of these things attached then within the law I can do what I like with it including copying it. A book is a copyright work but the copyright is about the literary work and the fact it is on paper is largely irrelevant. What determines your usage rights for those pieces of paper are the literary work it carries not the pieces of paper (unless made of a new patented paper material or similar) > a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader, > a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free software bits > are available for download. Except the keys - which may nor may not be required depending upon how a court (not a mailing list) interprets the phrases "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" and "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." If you ask the legal profession about this seriously the answer you get is bluntly "There is no caselaw I am aware of", which means that nobody knows. Obviously Tivo and their legal counsel have formed an opinion and have based their actions upon that opinion. > the Tivo box is another (copyrighted) work, a piece of hardware. You can't copyright hardware. Sorry but if you are going to try and have a detailed logical argument you need to start from a rigorous base point. Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:39:19AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > This is the main reason I dislike GPLwhatever: there is no notion > > of "orginal author". You might have written 99% of the code, that > > Every literary work (including thus software) has an author, and that > author has certain rights which are implicit in them being author. Like, they can release/sell the whole thing under some arbitrary other license at their choice. But once you license it with the GPLv2, then you can't stop anyone else (who got it under that license) from using the code under that license anymore, as such it doesn't matter that you are the original author. > > doesn't matter. You have no rights whatsoever once you release > > something under the GPL (no more than ANYOne else). > > Wrong. The author has a collection of rights which vary by jurisdiction > but which are primarily governed by the Berne Convention and its sequels > notably TRIPS. > > > The GPL is nice for the community, and for the users - but very, > > very bad towards it's authors (taking all and every right you might > > have). If John Doe wants to re-release the whole kernel under > > You must be using a different GPL to the rest of us. You actually had me check the license of the linux kernel :p But really - it has this paragraph that I was refering to in most of it's source files: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. I might be wrong, but I always thought that that meant that John Doe is free to redistribute the software under version 3 of the License, as published by the FSF. There are source files in the kernel without this phrase, ie - they just say: * This file is released under the GPL. But then the paragraph from COPYING kicks in, reading: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Any, 'any version' probably includes version 3 as well. Finally, there are file that don't mention the GPL at all, for example kernel/sys.c just says: * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds But - if it weren't GPL-ed then that would be a violation of the GPL-ed of the rest (Nevertheless, I think the license header should be added to those files). > > GPLv3, then all he needs is a website and some bandwidth. > > And a very good lawyer (oh and a GPL3 as there isn't one yet...) I really don't like license discussions - and after reading in the mailinglist FAQ that license posts are taboo here - I was partly annoyed, partly amazed to see this HUGE flood of mails with as subject line "Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3" I am sorry that I drew the apparently wrong conclusion that GPL V3 is a pressing reality. > Alan -- Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:46:36 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements? > > > > Do you need anything else? > > No, I'm quite happy that this is all. So am I, actually :) > > > But if by the question you mean "would you think the GPLv3 is fine > > without the new language in section 6 about the 'consumer devices'", then > > the answer is that yes, I think that the current GPLv3 draft looks fine > > apart from that. > > Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional > permission for Tivoization? With Al Viro, at least, specifying that his code has been released *strictly* under GPLv2, this is impossible. > >> Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'? > >> (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've > >> failed to elaborate on before) > > > > I've *not* failed to elaborate on that before. Not at all. > > > > Just google for > > > > torvalds tit-for-tat > > > > and you'll see a lot of my previous postings. Trying to claim that this > > is somehow "new" is ludicrous. > > I didn't. But I've provided evidence that your prior musings on this > topic were wrong. I wanted to give you an opportunity to review your > position under this new light. I see you haven't changed it at all. It is wrong when you look at the text of the GPLv2 only. When you look at how the "Open Source" community works it is clear that the "tit-for-tat" nature is a reality. No, it isn't mandated by GPLv2, but that is the "spirit" of the GPLv2 that most people who work on Open Source projects follow. If you want a *REAL* and *CONTINUING* violation of the GPL just look at Herr Schillings "cdrecord", in which he places additional restrictions on peoples ability to modify the code with statements in the same such as "You must leave this check in place" or "You have to leave this comment in place" - even when the comment isn't part of the "licensing statement" mandated by the GPLv2. (if you want specifics I'll go download the source and pull them out) > > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as > > you see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me > > to do with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code. > > > > How hard is that to accept? > > Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the > GPL says. > > Where do you think the GPL say that you get the source code back? It doesn't. But that it doesn't *MAKES* *NO* *DIFFERENCE* because, in practice, that is *EXACTLY* what happens anyway. > > I don't call Linux "Free Software". I haven't called it that for close to > > ten years! Because I think the term "Open Source" is a lot better. > > I can appreciate that you think it's better, but unfortunately it > appears to be playing a significant role in confusing your > interpretation of the GPL. The GPL is not just about making the > source code visible, or even modifyable by others. It's about > respecting others' freedoms. No matter how badly you prefer Open > Source over Free Software, how badly you'd rather disregard the > freedoms in the spirit and in the legal terms of the GPL, you chose a > license designed to protect those freedoms, not only the ability to > see and modify source code. Which is not in question here. The objections Linus (and others) have to the GPLv3 may share some specifics with my own objections, but my own are that GPLv2 respects my freedoms in their entirety. GPLv3 restricts my freedoms because one (or more) of the people behind it have a political agenda. (No, that term isn't entirely accurate, but its the best one I have found for the situation. Explanation: We don't like the way the law of one or more munincipalities/political divisions/countries is written and rather than trying to get it changed through other channels, we are going to enforce the way we think it should be by using a related set of laws and the text of a license) > >> The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in, > >> "I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must > >> respect others' freedoms as well". Is this the "in kind" you're > >> talking about? Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even > >> GPLv2? > > > > I just ask that you give the software back in a usable form. That's > > all I ask for. > > I'm afraid that's not what the GPLv2 says. There's no provision > whatsoever about giving anything back. Not in the spirit, not in the > legal terms. But it does. If you are going to distribute your own, modified version - in any way - you have to make the source available as well. No, it doesn't require that you give back a version if you aren't distributing it, but in that case it hardly matters. DRH -- Dialup is like piss
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:45:08 -0400 Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > > And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work > > of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have > > you) > > Wait, a signed filesystem image that happens to contain GPL code > is now a derived work? Under what sort of interpretation does *that* > occur? > > (This pretty much throws the 'aggregation' premise in GPLv2 completely > out.) Perhaps the FSF will in future remember to pack a copy of the GPL in each of its md5sum files on the mirror if this is a derivative work, and modify the bittorrent protocol to include a copy of the GPL in the seed files 8) Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> B) There are actually manufacturers who would be happy with your straw man. > Lots of companies in the far east produce products that infringe on patents > from 30 different competitors, and rather than try to license everything > (which isn't even always possible) they spin off a shell company (or nested > series thereof), design and manufacture a product, sell a production run of > them into the distribution channel, and then dissolve the shell company > before the inventory hits retailers. But the time anybody is in a position This isn't just done for IPR, in fact in many fields IPR is a non-issue. The primary reason for this practice is to render US health and safety regulation irrelevant and to prevent class action suits if/when your device kills someone. Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > you are not "entitled" to dictate the hardware's design (or any > > other copyrighted work's design), > > Agreed. hey, that's progress. If you concede this single point then your arguments about the Tivo situation all fall like domino stones. Just watch it happen please: > > By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the > > license too: > > No, you're confusing two very different situations. > > In the case of TiVO, it's getting out of its way to make sure users > can't enjoy one of the freedoms that the license says it ought to pass > on. the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused about how software licenses work. the GPL applies to software. It is a software license. the Tivo box is a piece of hardware. a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader, a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free software bits are available for download. the Tivo box is another (copyrighted) work, a piece of hardware. so how can, in your opinion, the hardware that Tivo produces, "take away" some right that the user has to the GPL-ed software? Because they distribute the software and the hardware in the same package, and because the hardware (as _ALL_ hardware on this planet) has certain limitations? It was _your_ choice to buy that particular hardware+software combination, with whatever limitations the hardware has. One such limitation of the hardware might be that its color is butt-ugly pink. Another limitation might be that the buttons on it are too small for elderly people to press. A third limitation might be that it's not a general purpose computer and that it's not freely programmable by the end user. Bugger, what did you expect? Why didnt you buy a green PVR? Why didnt you buy a PVR with larger buttons? Why didnt you buy a general purpose computer? Did perhaps the Tivo look like a nice general purpose PC to you when you bought it? > In the cases you mentioned, the company would have to get out of its > way to put the other parties on equal grounds. how about quoting what i wrote and rebutting it specifically if you disagree with it, instead of writing a non-sequitor generality? You are involved in compiler development, so you should have the mental ability to follow logical arguments and you should be able to conduct a meaningful and objective discussion. Lets look at one of the examples i gave you: > > - free access to all the hardware diagnostics tools that the > > hardware maker has. (Without that it might be impossible to modify > > the software as efficiently as the hardware maker's own engineers > > can do it.) by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the software", on that piece of hardware it bought which had free software on it, correct? By your argument, the "right to modify the software" becomes meaningless if you cannot soft-upgrade your Tivo, if you have solder off the ROM to install your own ROM with a bootloader that does not do the SHA1 check, correct? But by that _very same argument_, you are hindered _much more_ by not having proper hardware diagnostics tools and no access to hardware specifications. If you dont know how the hardware works, you cannot fix bugs in the software. So by your argument, the user has an inherent right to get on equal footing with the hardware manufacturer to modify the software on that specific hardware? There's no ifs and when. "having to solder off the ROM" is a "restriction on modifiability" just as much as "having less information about the hardware's inner workings". In fact, ask any kernel developer, "having to solder off the ROM" is a lot _smaller_ restriction than "having no information about the hardware's inner workings". Ingo - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tivo *respected* the freedoms, and gave source back, and gave you all the same rights you had to Linux originally, and to their modifications. How stupid are you to not acknowledge that? Tivo limited their *hardware*, not the software. Have you ever wondered *why* it limited the hardware? Is it per chance such that I cannot modify the software that runs on the hardware? if you cannot modify the software that runs on your Tivo hardware you haven't tried very hard. true, they don't go out of their way to make it easy, but even if they didn't do the integrity checking of the system it still wouldn't be easy to load your own software on the tivo, there's no path to load the software without disassembling the hardware. How is that respecting the freedoms? How is this not imposing further restrictions? I think the software is all available at www.tivo.com/linux that provides you all the freedom that they got. David Lang And, more importantly, how is it that permitting this makes for *better* compliance with your tit-for-tat conceptions about the GPL? I.e., if Tivoization is the only issue that you think makes GPLv3 a worse license than GPLv2, and you like GPLv2 because of this tit-for-tat, surely you should be able to explain why Tivoization promotes this tit-for-tat notion better than GPLv3, right? - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work > of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have > you) Wait, a signed filesystem image that happens to contain GPL code is now a derived work? Under what sort of interpretation does *that* occur? (This pretty much throws the 'aggregation' premise in GPLv2 completely out.) Bill - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu 14 Jun 2007 01:07, Alexandre Oliva pondered: > >> then maybe the small > >> company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are > >> various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing > >> restrictions of modification on any software in the device, all the > >> way from hardware-constrained output power to hardware-verified > >> authorized configuration parameters. > > > > As a person pretty familiar with the hardware in these types of > > devices - this just isn't practical. > > I actually left out the most obvious one: store the program in ROM. > Is that not practical? > > You're claiming that adding hardware locks and chains and bolts, > implemented with help from the loader software, is simpler than just > using ROM? As far as I know, I'm the first one who brought up the "the current GPLv3 draft forbids burning your code into ROM, you idiots" argument back before Bruce Perens cost the BusyBox project my services over this very issue. (Not that I didn't lock the license of that down to v2 and chase him away before I left, I was just too disgusted to ever again contribute to a project he'd named. Yeah, I hold a grudge.) Although it's kind of amusing to watch you attempt to dictate terms to hardware manufacturers, the answer to your question is "yes". Having flash is sometimes simpler and cheaper than having ROM. It means you don't have to burn a new mask to bump the firmware revision (especially on a low-volume production run, where "low volume" here is tens or hundreds of thousands instead of millions). It makes the thing a lot more field serviceable (you can upgrade the firmware without a chip puller). It means one physical chip can give you both read-only and persistent writeable storage. And flash chips produced in high enough unit volumes honestly can be cheaper than a custom ROM, pricing in semiconductors is all about unit volume. > Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking > dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the > signing key away. This should be good for the highly-regulated areas > you're talking about. And then, since you can no longer modify the > program, you don't have to let the user do that any more. Problem > solved. A) Does that actually satisfy the terms of GPLv3? If so, can't they just wait until they get sued and destroy the keys then? B) There are actually manufacturers who would be happy with your straw man. Lots of companies in the far east produce products that infringe on patents from 30 different competitors, and rather than try to license everything (which isn't even always possible) they spin off a shell company (or nested series thereof), design and manufacture a product, sell a production run of them into the distribution channel, and then dissolve the shell company before the inventory hits retailers. But the time anybody is in a position to take an enforcement action, the company to take the action against is gone. (Who are you going to sue, customers who bought the devices? The distributors who bought the inventory in good faith, and will then refuse to distribute any of YOUR product if you attack 'em?) There's always the possibility that somebody will sit down and follow the paper trail back to the parent company (through the multiple legal jurisdictions where nobody speaks english), but since they're likely as not to destroy this kind of info _anyway_ while burying their trail... Rob - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> If you don't want to cave in to content providers, use a regular PC and > soemthing like MythTV. You will probably also have to use the analogue > hole Only in the USA. In most of the world its considered quite normal that you can plug a USB disk into your PVR, save stuff to it and then plug it into your PC. Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> Why can't you understand that the GPL v2 is a *software* license, it > doesn't cover hardware at all. The GPLv2 is a copyright license not a software licence, indeed there is no such thing as a 'software licence'. It deals with the circumstances and manner in which you are permitted (by the author) to make copies of their work, to modify their work and in some cases to perform their work (plus other sundry rights). Copyright law doesn't care whether the object in question is as abstract as computer source code (providing it has been 'fixated' in some form) or a two hundred foot high art installation - or a combination of the two. So irrespective of the whole pointless debate going on you are trying to draw lines that don't exist in the first place. > I can't know for a fact what TiVO wants, but I can guess. You could also do your research. > All quite valid reasons in my opinion. and all wrong. Look up the owning and controlling interests in Tivo and you'll find the correct reason - stopping you doing evil things like keeping movies you've recorded or uploading them to the internet [which ironically of course is the entire effect of the whole 'convergence' thing] Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:57:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't see how you can claim that the vendor is infringing on your > > freedom, _you_ made the decision to go out and buy the product knowing > > that the vendor wasn't going to go out of their way to help you hack > > the device. > > But I also made this decision fully aware that the software included > in the package was published under a license that said I was entitled > to modify it. And you certainly are free to do so. The vendor ships the product with the binaries, and you get the source as a result. You can in turn modify that source and do whatever you like with it. If the vendor is more proactive, they may have even tried to get all of their changes merged by the time the product hit the market, so they wouldn't be sitting on anything "special" anyways. This however has nothing to do with your ability to apply those changes to the _hardware_. If the vendor doesn't want to, or is unable to support third-party modifications on their product, they have the basic right to make that decision, as you have the basic right not to buy the product if this is something that's going to be a problem for you. > More than once I purchased a device that claimed to have GNU/Linux > software on it, only to find out that I couldn't use the freedoms, > because the distributor was infringing the license in various ways. > In this example, at _no time_ did the vendor infringe on the license. They haven't given you an easy way to change the hardware, but they're completely compliant both in terms of the letter and the spirit (depending on how they work with the community) of the license. If you're trying to pretend that GPLv2 had _anything_ to say about hardware, you'd be wrong. In such a situation, there'd hardly be a "need" (as you seem to see it) for GPLv3 at all. If you think this bizarre coupling of the hardware/software paradigm is in any way constructive, you're of course welcome to use the GPLv3, but this does not retroactively change the terms of the GPLv2 simply because you saw this as an area that was apparently "lacking". And on the other hand, you're more than welcome to dual-license all of your kernel changes under v2/v3 if you really feel that that's the best way to go, just as I'm welcome to print out and burn the GPLv3 as a symbolic gesture. Simply because some folks have no intention of ever supporting v3 doesn't stop you from using it on any of your own changes. - 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/
RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> Do you even understand what "tit-for-tat" means? I don't. Could someone please explain it. Specifically: 1) What is "tat"? 2) How can I get some? 3) Where do I go to trade it in? DS - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> This is the main reason I dislike GPLwhatever: there is no notion > of "orginal author". You might have written 99% of the code, that Every literary work (including thus software) has an author, and that author has certain rights which are implicit in them being author. > doesn't matter. You have no rights whatsoever once you release > something under the GPL (no more than ANYOne else). Wrong. The author has a collection of rights which vary by jurisdiction but which are primarily governed by the Berne Convention and its sequels notably TRIPS. > The GPL is nice for the community, and for the users - but very, > very bad towards it's authors (taking all and every right you might > have). If John Doe wants to re-release the whole kernel under You must be using a different GPL to the rest of us. > GPLv3, then all he needs is a website and some bandwidth. And a very good lawyer (oh and a GPL3 as there isn't one yet...) Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
[ Damn. I moved you to my flamers list, and then I started reading it. I'm addicted to flaming. Sue me. I really do enjoy it too much. If I didn't do software development, my full-time job would probably be to troll various internet sites and try to set up flame wars. I'm bad, I know. It's an addiction. I'm not proud. ] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > But then again I ask you: why do you think TiVO is making these > hardware locks? What do they want to cause or stop? Actually, they didn't want to lock down the hardware at all. The first versions of the Tivo was really quite hackable - and people started hacking them. They were basically forced to add lockdown by the content vendors. You can call them evil for "caving in", but hey, it was their whole market. They really had no choice. Being a company actually limits you in some ways.. If you don't want to cave in to content providers, use a regular PC and soemthing like MythTV. You will probably also have to use the analogue hole, and will have a really hard time unscrambling digital cable TV signals of your own, but hey, you can see it as a challenge. At least in places where it's not illegal. And yes, there are bad laws in the US. But blaming Tivo for them is ludicrous. And the *laws* won't get fixed by software licensing either, quite the reverse. The GPLv3 will just make free software that uses it *less* relevant in that space, rather than more. For example, I'd rather have some GPLv2'd DVD player software that does *not* come with a de-css key (I can get that key myself quite easily), and that thus gets distributed in a "useless" form, than have a GPLv3'd DVD player that cannot be distributed at all, because it needs the magic unlocking key, and distributing the css key is illegal in some countries. Or if I was an mplayer developer (which I'm not - so I have absolutely *zero* say in the mplayer license - please don't take this as anythign like that), I'd prefer for mplayer to be GPLv2, simply because that way I could see my software in some high-end (legal) DVD players that actually complied with the insane laws that exist. Sure, to comply with the laws and not get sued, they might have to limit the hardware, but hey, in other saner places of the world (like Finland), you can use the GPLv2'd software legally *without* those concerns. See? The more permissive license actually allows more people to get involved. And the only thing that really *matters* (the source code) can be distributed and improved on by all these different people, even if some of them may have their hands bound by legal issues. Btw, the same is true of things like FCC rules in the US. All that is evil does not come from the RIAA and MPAA. It's entirely possible that a cellphone manufacturer would have to lock down the control logic that sets the power levels - and that is something that is against the license of the GPLv3. So the GPLv3 actually _hinders_ people who might otherwise help the community from helping, by making the license so strict that those people (who are nice people, but have their options limited by stupid laws and regulations) cannot use the GPLv3. Linus - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and >> makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to >> accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the >> GPLv3? > You *cannot* make GPLv3-only contributions to the kernel. I can make improvements to GPLv2+ files under GPLv3 (or rather will, after GPLv3 is published). And you wrote: > I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release > improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to > merge those improvements if I want to. So which is it? Do you want to be able to use other people's improvements, respecting the conditions you said they are legitimately entitled to make, or is this not quite the whole story? > But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel, > the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is > not compatible with v2. I understand this very well. You'd have to get the kernel upgraded to GPLv3 in order to accept the contribution. Likewise for any other contribution under any other GPLv2-incompatible license. So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use other people's improvements, cannot be taken without qualification. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
"Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It does not matter. GPL v2 and later can be reduced to v2 by > recepient. Linus did just that so unless individual source file > explicitely carries "and later" it is v2. Well, if it said "licenced under GPL" it would mean any GPL. Though it's probably uncommon. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 15/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] So what is it that makes hardware so different that it can be used as a trick to deny users freedoms, if other tricks can't? [snip] Why can't you understand that the GPL v2 is a *software* license, it doesn't cover hardware at all. If I take some GPLv2 software, modify it and then distribute it on a CD-ROM and provide the source code as well, then I have complied with the terms of the license. If I take the same software, make the same modifications and distribute the software in a ROM inside some piece of hardware, but still allow people access to a copy of the source code used to build whatever I put inside that ROM, then I've also complied with the license. In neither case can you modify the copy on the hardware (be it ROM chip or CD-ROM), but that's not required by the license. As long as you have access to the source code it's OK. The license says nothing about you having to be able to update it on the hardware. The license only says you need access to the source code. No one is taking away your freedom to change the source or redistribute it or whatever. The only thing locked hardware prevents you from doing is installing modified software on that specific piece of hardware, but that is completely outside the scope of the *software* license. [snip] But then again I ask you: why do you think TiVO is making these hardware locks? What do they want to cause or stop? I can't know for a fact what TiVO wants, but I can guess. 1) Maybe they want to prevent you installing modified software on their hardware, then contacting them when you break it, costing them money in customer support etc. 2) Perhaps they don't want to risk being liable if you modify the software on their box in a way that allows you to use it as a means to break the law. 3) Maybe they don't want you to modify the software running on their hardware in such a way as to use the software to obtain intimate details about their hardware that could be used by a competitor to create a product superiour to theirs. All quite valid reasons in my opinion. -- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:04:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe. > > Are you playing Linus' sheeple and parroting his lines just to make a > point, or are you like that all the time? ;-) Read the hover text on http://xkcd.org/c202.html I'm wondering if it's time for a "Munroe's law" concerning that word... Rob - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 11:44:07 Bernd Paysan wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:08, Alan Milnes wrote: > > Agreed - if you want to take my work you are welcome as long as you > > contribute back your changes. That's the deal that GPL2 enforces and > > why it has been so successful. > > That may be a side effect of the GPL, but it's actually not how the GPLv2 > works (nor is it the intention). "Contribute back" means upstream. There's > no such provision in the GPLv2, you contribute only downstream. And there > are cases where you don't need to contribute at all. And the Linux kernel community has been familiar with this situation all along. It's the bargain the kernel developers struck with each other a decade and a half ago. Now the FSF is coming along and being Darth Vader: "I am altering the bargain. Pray I don't alter it any further." > I think this above explains fairly well the "misunderstandings" that are > appearing here. The GPL is not reflective (tit-for-tat), it's transient. If > there's a loop in the transient propagation, it becomes reflective through > the loop, but not by itself. This was the case in GPLv1, is the case in > GPLv2, and will be the case in GPLv3. That's not specifically a limitation of the GPL, that's a limitation of copyright law which forms the basis of the GPL. It covers distribution, not usage. GPLv2 eliminates the case where I have a modified binary I contributed to, but can't see the source code of those modifications. This has the pragmatic effect of greatly reducing forking in a project, such as the Emacs/Lucid Emacs fork that inspired the "Emacs license" that became GPLv1. Rob - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:09:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux. [...] > I'm not going to bother discussing this any more. You don't seem to > respect my right to choose the license for my own code. This is the main reason I dislike GPLwhatever: there is no notion of "orginal author". You might have written 99% of the code, that doesn't matter. You have no rights whatsoever once you release something under the GPL (no more than ANYOne else). The GPL is nice for the community, and for the users - but very, very bad towards it's authors (taking all and every right you might have). If John Doe wants to re-release the whole kernel under GPLv3, then all he needs is a website and some bandwidth. -- Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > So let's look at that "section 6" that you talk about, and quote the > > relevant parts, will we: > > > > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' > > exercise of the rights granted herein. > > > > and then let's look at Red Hat sending me a CD-ROM or a DVD. > > > > Now, Red Hat clearly *did* "further restrict" my rights as it pertains TO > > THAT COPY ON THE CD-ROM! I cannot change it! Waa waa waa! I'll sue your > > sorry ass off! > > Red Hat is not stopping you from making changes. The media is, and > that's not something Red Hat can control. TiVO isn't stopping you from making changes - the *media* is. (in this case the "Media" isn't even doing as much as a CD-ROM does. The only thing a TiVO box restricts is which binaries it will execute as the operating system) > > Compare this with the TiVO. TiVO *designs* the thing such that it can > still make changes, but customers can't. > > That's the difference. No, it isn't. Look at any motherboard. The Bios on the last three or four motherboards I've purchased check for a digital signature on the Bios updates. The motherboard manufacturer can make changes, but the customer can't. Is there any difference? Nope. > TiVO is using hardware to "impose further restrictions on the > recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", and this violates > section 6 of GPLv2. No, they don't. The GPLv2 makes no provisions for you being able to execute a modified copy of the code on the same media or hardware that you received it on. The fact is that claiming it was "the spirit" doesn't matter at all - this isn't philosophy you're arguing, its *LAW*, and in law, if it isn't clearly spelled out, it doesn't exist. > > See the issue? You are continually making the mistake of thinking that > > the GPLv2 talks about individual copies of software. > > It does. You're making the mistake of thinking that it doens't. And > even in the legal terms that you claimed to have understood so > thoroughly. > > > The rights granted are the rights to "distribute and modify the > > software". > > More specifically, some of the rights are: > > copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as > you receive it > > modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus > forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such > modifications or work And where does it say that you even have the right to run the "work based on the Program", or even a self-compiled copy of the "verbatim copy of the code" on any given piece of hardware? > > But by "the software", the license is not talking about a particular > > *copy* of the software, it's talking about the software IN THE ABSTRACT. > > Please read it again. Done. Section 3 of GPLv2 covers the right to distribute "object code" forms of a licensed work. At no point does it even *mention* that, if the object code form comes on a device capable of executing it, you have to give the right to execute a modified form of the work on the same platform. If this has been the "intent and spirit" of the license from the beginning, it should be there somewhere. 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:32:08 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: > > They let you have the code and make changes to it, > > Not to the software installed in the device. So now you want access to all the software that is installed in their device? Could you explain that please? You do have access to the GPL code that they used. If you buy one of Google's Search Appliance, are you expecting to allow you to make changes to the software that is installed on that device? > > What they do is like an author A who distributes a program to user B > under a non-Free Software license, and to user C under a Free Software > license. > > C passes the program on to B under the same license. Now B has two > copies of the program. One is free, the other is not. > > Except that TiVO had no right to distribute the program under non-Free > terms in the first place, because it was not the author, and the > license it had explicitly said it couldn't impose further > restrictions. Reread what you wrote here and see the complete lack of logic in your argument. Author A are Linux developers who distribute their software under GPL 2, TiVO gets the software under the same license and distributes it to their end users. They then make the all the changes to the Linux Kernel available to their end users under the same terms that they got from the Linux kernel developers. What freedom did they take away? - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the >> > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. >> >> Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. > Why do you bother sending out emails that just show that you cannot read > or understand? Because I can't divine what's in your mind, and if you don't make the points you want to make clear, I may very well fail to understand. > I want not just the code *I* write to be freely available. I want the > modifications that others release that are based on my code to be freely > available too! With the exception of those who choose not to distribute their changes. Or who choose to distribute their changes to people who are not willing to share them with you. Fair enough. > That's what the whole "tit-for-tat" thing was all about! > Doyou even understand what "tit-for-tat" means? Yes. I even wrote an article about that. http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite > Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? Yes. It's there in the article as well. The difference is basically in attitude. Tit-for-tat is adversarial (equivalent retaliation), whereas Quid pro quo is cooperative (a favor for a favor). > Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years. Yup, I remember that. >> > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the >> > improvements back. >> GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. >> It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the >> benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. > You are living in some alternate world. The GPLv2 gives me exactly > what I looked for. And in what sense the GPLv3 anti-Tivoization clause doesn't? In what sense does it give you *less* of what you want? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:25:46 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral > > > boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF > > > seems to > > > > Assuming a democratic state then the laws of the land ought to reflect > > the 'general will' (if you believe Rousseau anyway). They should thus > > define the boundary ['derivative work' generally ] according to the > > general good and with the consent of the people. > > uhm, so if the MPAA and the RIAA pays for another nice piece of > legislation that extends the power of copyright owners, do you find it > morally justified to use those powers, as long as it's argued to be in > favor of some long-term goal that you judge to be moral, even if it > results in some "temporary injustice"? Turnabout is fair play, and unilateral disarmament is a bad strategy in a mexican standoff? Finding it morally justified to _have_ powers is not the same as finding it morally justified to _use_ powers you have anyway. Lots of companies (like Red Hat) amass defensive software patent portfolios because the patent system is so screwed up. But then, I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. You can be one or the other and make it work. Mixing the two tends to suck. Being ruthlessly pragmatic in the pursuit of an ideal (as the FSF seems to be doing) has often been a recipe for disaster... Rob - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 07:27:59 Bernd Paysan wrote: > Where is the boundary between hard- and software? Software's the bit that's infinitely replicable at zero cost. Hardware tends not to be. Rob - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use >> >> the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that >> >> they're entitled to have. >> > The software license controls the software. If the hardware has >> > restrictions on it that limit what software it will run, then that is >> > unrelated to the software license. >> As in, the license controls the software. If a patent creates >> restrictions that limit what you can do with the software, then that >> is unrelated to the software license. > No - because this case is covered in GPLv2. Lose the straw-men. It's not a straw man. See, I was just showing that there's precedent to ensuring that other tricks can't be used to deny users the freedoms that the GPL is meant to defend. By pointing out this is in the GPLv2, you acknowledge the point I wanted to make. So what is it that makes hardware so different that it can be used as a trick to deny users freedoms, if other tricks can't? > But that right has never been guaranteed by the GPL. It might have been the > *intent* of RMS when he wrote GPLv1 and the *intent* of the FSF when they > wrote GPLv2, but intent is worth exactly *NOTHING* in the law *UNLESS* that > intent is spelled out. That's the different between legal terms and the spirit. And the promise of the GPL is to retain the spirit, to defend the freedoms. >> That would be an unfortunate machine to have, but if Linux or some >> other GPLed software was not shipped in it, then I don't see how this >> is relevant to this discussion. It's not about the hardware, it's >> about the software in it, and about passing on the freedoms related >> with it. > Exactly. However, you are making it about the hardware by making the claim > that "replacing a program, in its entirety, with another is a modification". > It isn't. A modification is when you replace or change a *portion* of a > program. By your logic I could write an operating system that is 100% binary > compatible with Linux and I'd be *required* to release it under the GPL, > because, even though it *replaces* Linux, it's still a "modification". I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning here, but I'm already convinced that the argument about modification by replacement won't fly. But then again I ask you: why do you think TiVO is making these hardware locks? What do they want to cause or stop? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:55:09 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote: >> >> And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of >> >> hardware throught the influence of their software. >> >> It's not. It's only working to ensure recipients of the Free Software >> can modify and share the software. >^ > Exactly what has been said to you the whole time, but you still refuse to > accept that. If Linus develops and runs his code on a PowerPC and I struggle > to install the code that he has released for me to modify and share on a > PowerPC (maybe because I'm an idiot). Should I create a license with a > Linusation term, because he is evil he runs his code on a PowerPC and I > can't? Depends. In this hypothetical scenario, what did he do to stop you from installing and running the modified version (or even the pristine version, merely recompiled) in your PowerPC? And why did he do it? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and > makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to > accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the > GPLv3? You *cannot* make GPLv3-only contributions to the kernel. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. You can take some of the code that is GPLv2+ in the kernel, and MOVE IT TO ANOTHER PROJECT, and use them there. But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel, the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is not compatible with v2. This is no different from the fact that we have some drivers that are GPLv2/BSD licensed. Within the kernel, they are GPLv2. But on their own, you can choose to use them under the BSD license, make your changes to them, and release them commercially. And correct - I cannot (and neither can anybody else) then accept those *non*GPLv2 changes back. > I understand. I assumed you had some trust that people would abide by > your wish to permit TiVOization, and that authors of modifications > were entitled to make "whatever restrictions they wanted" on their > code. Actually, normally I *do* have such a trust. It's why I have no problem with drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and in fact, I've told people that I don't want them to turn them into GPL-only, because that is simply not polite. But I hold *myself* to higher standards than I hold others. And in particular, when it comes to people with a religious agenda, I don't expect them to be polite or take my feelings into account. I expect (from good history) that people with a license agenda will consider the license agenda more important than any hurt feelings, or any wishes of mine. > Pardon me if I think your position is at least somewhat incoherent. > Can you help me make sense of it? I'm giving up. I'm moving you to my "flamers" list, so that your emails go to a separate mailbox that I read weekly. I've wasted too much time with you, your arguments don't make sense, and you seem to refuse to even _try_ to understand my position, or respect the fact that my choice of license is MY choice, and that I actually have a brain of my own. Linus - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> A hundred or so messages back someone stated that the parport driver in Linux > is GPLv1.1 - however, on checking on this statement for myself I've found > that there is no statement about it being v1.1 and, in fact, given that Linux > itself is GPLv2 there is no possible way any code covered by GPLv1.1 can > exist. Wrong again. If a piece of code was merged into the kernel with a GPL v1 "or later" license then it still has a GPL v1 "or later" license. The "or later" makes it compatible with the v2 code but does not change the fundamental copyright on the original work that was combined. Thus if you could identify specifically a GPL v1 work within the kernel you could use that GPL v1 work as per GPL v1 providing you didn't mix it with v2 code. If I take a public domain book and create a derivative work from it the original work does not magically become restricted. Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the > >> hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free > >> Software in it. > > > > No you're not...you're talking about being able to hack the software > > *and load it back onto the original hardware*. > > Yes. You wouldn't impose restrictions on modifying the software like > that, now would you? Even though the GPL says you can't impose > further restrictions on modification and distribution. replace != modify > > >> It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use > >> the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that > >> they're entitled to have. > > > > The software license controls the software. If the hardware has > > restrictions on it that limit what software it will run, then that is > > unrelated to the software license. > > As in, the license controls the software. If a patent creates > restrictions that limit what you can do with the software, then that > is unrelated to the software license. No - because this case is covered in GPLv2. Lose the straw-men. > As in, the license controls the software. If a discriminatory > contract limits what you can do with the software, then that is > unrelated to the software license. Incorrect. This is, again, covered by the GPLv2. Straw-man argument. > As in, the license controls the software. If I send you the source > code, but it happens to be protected by a key that only the hardware > can decode, and it won't decode for you, then that is unrelated to the > software license. Straw-man. Situation covered by the GPLv2. > Is that so, really? > > > There is nothing stopping you from taking the code for the tivo, > > modifying it, distributing it, or even running it on other hardware. > > True. But TiVO is still imposing further restrictions on how I can > modify the software stored in their device, while reserving that > ability to itself. This is wrong. This is not "in kind". This is > not "tit-for-tat". Tit-for-tat is: if they can, then I can too, and > if I can't, then they can't either. But that right has never been guaranteed by the GPL. It might have been the *intent* of RMS when he wrote GPLv1 and the *intent* of the FSF when they wrote GPLv2, but intent is worth exactly *NOTHING* in the law *UNLESS* that intent is spelled out. Anyway, as I've pointed out before: replace != modify You can *replace* parts of a program and it will be a modification, you can *replace* components of a piece of Hardware and it will be a modification but replacing one software component of a device with another is *NOT* a modification. Why? Because the hardware hasn't changed at all - the hardware is merely there so the software can perform its job. And since you are *replacing* the *ENTIRE* piece of software, it isn't a modification of the software. > > Suppose I had some machine that will only run microsoft-signed > > binaries. Would it be at all related to any software license that this > > machine won't let me run linux? > > That would be an unfortunate machine to have, but if Linux or some > other GPLed software was not shipped in it, then I don't see how this > is relevant to this discussion. It's not about the hardware, it's > about the software in it, and about passing on the freedoms related > with it. Exactly. However, you are making it about the hardware by making the claim that "replacing a program, in its entirety, with another is a modification". It isn't. A modification is when you replace or change a *portion* of a program. By your logic I could write an operating system that is 100% binary compatible with Linux and I'd be *required* to release it under the GPL, because, even though it *replaces* Linux, it's still a "modification". 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the > > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. > > Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. Why do you bother sending out emails that just show that you cannot read or understand? I want not just the code *I* write to be freely available. I want the modifications that others release that are based on my code to be freely available too! That's what the whole "tit-for-tat" thing was all about! Doyou even understand what "tit-for-tat" means? Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years. > > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the > > improvements back. > > GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. > > It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the > benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. You are living in some alternate world. The GPLv2 gives me exactly what I looked for. Yes, people can do improvements in private, and by keeping them private they'll never need to release them to anybody else. Big deal. I don't care. By keeping them private, I never see the end result anyway, so they "don't exist" as far as I'm concerned. > > And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than > > the GPLv3? > > No. Honestly, I really don't. Yeah. So stop bothering me then. Go cry on somebody elses shoulder. Just accept the fact that I'm a grown person, in full control of my faculties, and that I'm perfectly able to make my own judgements, and that I don't need to follow the FSF blindly. And it doesn't even matter if you don't understand me. That is, as I've said, _your_ problem. I've done my best to explain to you, but if you are so limited that you cannot understand that other people have other opinions than yours, there really is only so much I can do for you. Go away. Linus - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to >>> everyone - just to those that get the binaries. >> Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus' >> theory of tit-for-tat falls apart. > Nope. > case 1: Upstream provides source, tivo modifies and distributes it > (to their customers). > case 2: tivo provides source, end user modifies and distributes it > (possibly to their customers, maybe to friends, possibly even to > upstream). > See? Tit for tat. case 2': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes the hardware won't let him and gives up Where's the payback, or the payforward? And then, tit-for-tat is about equivalent retaliation, an eye for an eye. Where's the retaliation here? If GPLv2 were tit-for-tat, if someone invents artifices to prevent the user from making the changes the user wants on the software, wouldn't it be "equivalent retaliation" to prevent the perpetrator from making the changes it wants on the software? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:31:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. Those would not ensure that the source code stays free. > > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the > > improvements back. > > GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. > > It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the > benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. It seems to work very well in practice though. > No. Honestly, I really don't. Even when I try and look at it from > your perspective, that you described very beautifully in the rest of > the message that I snipped, it's still a mistery to me why you think > permitting Tivoization could possibly be advantageous to your project. Perhaps there is no benefit in permitting "Tivoization". But at the same time, perhaps there are benefits in not preventing "Tivoization" in ways that may or may not be foreseen at this time. > What is it in the anti-Tivoization provision that gets you any less > improvements back? Tivo has provided some code changes and improvements to Linux. If they had been totally unable to use Linux due to the license, they would probably have used vxworks or BSD or something else, and Linux would have gotten nothing back. So the Linux source code improved and other systems using the linux code base got better as a result. > If anything, I'd think that, by not permitting TiVO to prohibit users > from running modified versions of your code that they don't authorize > themselves, these users would do *more* than TiVO alone ever could, > and if a fraction of them contributes something back, you're way > better off. Users of the Tivo hardware would be able to do more, sure, but then again, actualyl, maybe not. After all if it ran vxworks or bsd, the user still wouldn't be able to do anything about it. The end result is the same. The answer is also still the same: Don't buy a tivo if you want to change what it does, because it doesn't let you do that. -- Len Sorensen - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:55:09 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote: > >> And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of > >> hardware throught the influence of their software. > > It's not. It's only working to ensure recipients of the Free Software > can modify and share the software. ^ Exactly what has been said to you the whole time, but you still refuse to accept that. If Linus develops and runs his code on a PowerPC and I struggle to install the code that he has released for me to modify and share on a PowerPC (maybe because I'm an idiot). Should I create a license with a Linusation term, because he is evil he runs his code on a PowerPC and I can't? - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > But how about inside the TiVO, so as to use Linux and the rest of the > GNU/Linux distro put in there for an even better DVR experience? > > Sure, this might still be accomplished on another hardware platform. > But the TiVO already has all the hardware there, and you already have > all the software ready to work on it. Except that you can't change > it. You'd have to waste time and money just to get to the same status > on another hardware platform. > > What do we gain? Nothing. But that's not the terms it was licensed under, and no matter what someone may claim about the *spirit* of the license, adding clauses that restrict how you can deploy GPL software for use is a fundamental enough change to the practical aspect of the license that it's no wonder that people will choose not to use it. If the designers of the license are more interested in vendettas against those using the software in a way they didn't see beforehand (come on, explicitly trying to define 'consumer product'?) in order to accomplish pyrrhic victories (people moving to other platforms instead of using your newly licensed code), that's fine, it's their choice. But not everyone will want to follow that choice. Bill - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not >> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of >> running the Program is not restricted, ... >> >> The license does not cover running of the program. It doesn't restrict >> it, but it doesn't cover it. Claiming otherwise is turning the GPL into >> yet another dreaded EULA. > For many juridisctions loading from disk into memory is copying and in > some from memory to CPU cache a second copy. This is one reason as I > understand it GPLv3 talks about "conveying" - to avoid that mess and > confusion. Hmm... This is interesting. Let me sidetrack a little bit. Who would be held liable should the copy not be authorized by the copyright holder? The designer of the hardware? The seller? The person who powerer the computer on? The author of the boot loader (if I'm talking about the kernel about to be loaded). > Really irrelevant to the discussion. Tivo's firmware is up to them. > Whether the resulting system permits them to include GPLv2 software with > it is what matters. +1 It all boils down to whether they're keeping their promise to not impose further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted in the license. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release > improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge > those improvements if I want to. Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the GPLv3? > Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT! By saying > that I shouldn't accept contributions like that, you just INVALIDATED the > whole point of the license in the first place! I understand. I assumed you had some trust that people would abide by your wish to permit TiVOization, and that authors of modifications were entitled to make "whatever restrictions they wanted" on their code. Pardon me if I think your position is at least somewhat incoherent. Can you help me make sense of it? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:53:47 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code? > > Maybe that code said 'or later' in the license and hence someone added > > it to a GPL v2 project since that sounds perfectly OK. > > Where did that GPLv1.1 nonsense come from? > > There is no GPLv1.1 code in the tree. By the time I selected the GPL for > the kernel license, the GPLv1.1 had long since been discontinued. The > kernel was *never* GPLv1.1-only compatible. That's just total nonsense. > > There was indeed a kernel license before the GPLv2, but it wasn't the GPL > at all, it was my own made-up thing. Appended here, for those who are too > lazy to actually look up and check the original Linux-0.01 announcement. > A hundred or so messages back someone stated that the parport driver in Linux is GPLv1.1 - however, on checking on this statement for myself I've found that there is no statement about it being v1.1 and, in fact, given that Linux itself is GPLv2 there is no possible way any code covered by GPLv1.1 can exist. DRH > Linus > > --- > This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be > redistributed provided you do the following: > > - Full source must be available (and free), if not with the > distribution then at least on asking for it. > > - Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute > only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't > (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied > without bothering with copyrights. > > - You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling" > costs. -- 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the > improvements back. GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. > So given that background, which license do you _think_ I should have > chosen? I can't morally recommend a non-Free Software license. > And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than > the GPLv3? No. Honestly, I really don't. Even when I try and look at it from your perspective, that you described very beautifully in the rest of the message that I snipped, it's still a mistery to me why you think permitting Tivoization could possibly be advantageous to your project. What is it in the anti-Tivoization provision that gets you any less improvements back? If anything, I'd think that, by not permitting TiVO to prohibit users from running modified versions of your code that they don't authorize themselves, these users would do *more* than TiVO alone ever could, and if a fraction of them contributes something back, you're way better off. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> > Since the Linux kernel as a whole does not have a single author, it is > > impossible to license it as a whole. Nobody has the authority > > to do that. > > (The GPL is not a copyright assignment type license.) > Actually, Linus Torvalds, as maintainer, probably has a > compilation copyright. > See "compilations and abridgements" in > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html It doesn't matter. He can license you his compilation, but that doesn't license you the underlying elements. I can make a compilation CD of great works of Rock N' Roll. I can hold a copilation copyright in the compilation. I can license that compilation copryight. That doesn't mean you can make, copy, or sell a CD with my compilation on it, because you are also copying and distributing the original works. > If you combine dual licensed code (such as MPL + GPL) with code > under only one > of those licenses (MPL only), the resulting derived work cannot be > distributed under the dual license, only under one license. That is a common simplification. The GPL is clear that it applies automatically with distribution. If you distribute a GPL'd work (or elements that are GPL'd inside a larger work), those elements are relicensed under the GPL automatically. You *cannot* prevent this from happening. If I take the Linux kernel, modify it, and then give you a copy, you get a license under GPLv2 from Linus to all of those elements that he placed under the GPL. I cannot stop or modify this. It applies even if I get separate permission from Linus to distribute his contributions under some other conditions. > The giant > derived work knows as Linux has only been distributable under exactly one > license (GPLv2, the complete text of which is included in the > source tarball > and it's harder to be more explicit than that about which license > you mean) > since version 0.12. No, not true. I don't have the court citations handy, but it is well-settled law that a right to distribute a derivative work is useless without also having the right to distribute the original work from which the derivative was made. > By the way, this entire "oh no, we can use it GPLv3 no matter > what you say" > line of argument is rude. Linus and most of his lieutenants have > explicitly > said "our contributions are GPLv2 only". Linus said this > explicitly seven > years ago: > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html Huh? I have never argued that any contribution made by Linus could be or had been licensed under GPLv3. Linus has clearly indicated, along with the works that he distributes, that the code is only offered under GPLv2. However, Linus cannot remove rights that other people grant to their code, even if he modifies that code. > You don't take Linux kernel code and stick it into a BSD project, > even though > some of it was BSD originally, because Linux (every line of it) > is GPLv2. If > you want the code under a different license, you go to a > differently licensed > upstream source, such as the original author or the project we adapted it > from. If you're not to lift code from Linux to BSD license it, > lifting code > from Linux to GPLv3 it is morally and legally no different. > > Linus made his decision, most of his lieutenants explicitly > confirmed that > decision. Please admit to yourselves that you're arguing that > they should > all change their minds because you don't like their decision, not because > they didn't have the right to make it or that there's some loophole that > invalidates it. What's your argument here, developers who are now > saying "GPLv2" _accidentally_ gave permission to distribute their > code under > other licenses? Go ahead and take that to court buddy: you will lose. > > If you want to create a GPLv3 fork and can trace back specific files to > authors who are ok with GPLv3, go create your fork. If you want > to go work > on Solaris, go do that. (But if you want to transplant Linux > code into that > thing, talk to Sun's lawyers first. And IBM's, and Red Hat's, and...) > > If you want each and every Linux developer who has ever stated a > GPLv2 only > position to either publicly reverse said position or to be > ejected from the > project and their code tracked down and removed from the kernel > via forensic > analysis (which is the only way the Linux kernel itself could > ever go GPLv3), > then do us a favor and shut up. I don't know who you are talking to or what you are talking about. I haven't seen anybody doing what you claim in this thread or anywhere else and I certainly am not. > > When you download a copy of the Linux kernel, you do not receive one > > license because nobody could grant you one license. > Yes you do, you receive GPLv2. It's in the file "LICENSE" at the > top level of > the directory. This is the one and only license you receive. No, not true. Please read and understand GPLv2 section 6. If a work is available under GPLv2+, and you receive that work (even
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they make > the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm not going to > get into arguments over whether kernel modules are "derivative works" or not, > since those invariably end up with "They aren't, even though we think they > should be") Who cares about whether the module is a derivative work? That's only relevant when you distribute the module as a separate work. When you ship a combined work including both the kernel and the module in question, it's a _whole_ lot easier to interpret the GPL. -- dwmw2 - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:28:34PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel > > as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code > > submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the > > understanding that the work as a whole is specifically licensed as > > GPLv2. Some authors have granted additional rights, such as dual BSD/GPL > > or GPLv2 and later and explicitly added such a notice. > > Since the Linux kernel as a whole does not have a single author, it is > impossible to license it as a whole. Nobody has the authority to do that. > (The GPL is not a copyright assignment type license.) > > Fortunately, the GPL clears this up: > > "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > this License." > > Linus cannot impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of > the rights granted. > > When you download a copy of the Linux kernel, you do not receive one license > because nobody could grant you one license. You receive a logically separate > license from each original licensor. You receive from Linus only a license > to his contributions. > > Note that you cannot take a GPLv2+ work and redistribute it as GPLv3 only. > You can license your contributions as GPLv3 only of course. However, each > recipient still receives a GPLv2+ license to the parts that were originally > licensed that way. The people you distribute the work from receive licenses > from the original licensors to those parts, and you have no right to modify > that license. (See GPL section 6, quoted above.) You have a good point. It can be argued that contributions before 2.4.0-test8 were in fact GPLv2+, but anything after that point has clearly been contributed as GPLv2 only. So now we have a bunch of pre-2.4.0-test8 code that may possibly be v2+ and files that explicitly state v2+ in their boiler plate. However many of these files may have had additional contributions from other authors which (unless otherwise specified) were GPLv2-only. And because v2 and v3 are incompatible, all those files with v2-only contributions will become v2-only when version 3 is released. Of course it may be that all those copyright owners do not mind re-releasing their copyrighted code as v2+, but they will have to be contacted. Several maintainers did pay attention to such details. I once submitted a patch that among others touched reiserfs, and I promptly got a friendly email from Hans asking me to sign off any rights he needed to re-release the related code under a different license, so he made sure the combined work wouldn't end up GPLv2 only. Jan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:28:34 David Schwartz wrote: > > The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel > > as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code > > submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the > > understanding that the work as a whole is specifically licensed as > > GPLv2. Some authors have granted additional rights, such as dual BSD/GPL > > or GPLv2 and later and explicitly added such a notice. > > Since the Linux kernel as a whole does not have a single author, it is > impossible to license it as a whole. Nobody has the authority to do that. > (The GPL is not a copyright assignment type license.) Actually, Linus Torvalds, as maintainer, probably has a compilation copyright. See "compilations and abridgements" in http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html > Fortunately, the GPL clears this up: > > "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > this License." > > Linus cannot impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of > the rights granted. If you combine dual licensed code (such as MPL + GPL) with code under only one of those licenses (MPL only), the resulting derived work cannot be distributed under the dual license, only under one license. The giant derived work knows as Linux has only been distributable under exactly one license (GPLv2, the complete text of which is included in the source tarball and it's harder to be more explicit than that about which license you mean) since version 0.12. By the way, this entire "oh no, we can use it GPLv3 no matter what you say" line of argument is rude. Linus and most of his lieutenants have explicitly said "our contributions are GPLv2 only". Linus said this explicitly seven years ago: http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html He confirmed and elaborated his position when people first started pestering about v3: http://lwn.net/Articles/169825/ In James Bottomley's position paper last year, a number of prominent kernel developers stated their objection and that their contributions were GPLv2 only: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217 James E.J. Bottomley Mauro Carvalho Chehab Thomas GleixnerChristoph Hellwig Dave Jones Greg Kroah-Hartman Tony Luck Andrew Morton Trond Myklebust David Woodhouse Let me translate this into simpler terms: GPLv3: Does not want! The _reason_ it's rude to go on about it is that several people have chosen to see this entire debate as an interesting intellectual exercise, "how much code could a GPLv3 licensed project lift from the Linux kernel". Yet if you substitute "BSD Licensed" in there, it's easy to recognize how obnoxious the pestering is, despite much of the code in Linux having come from BSD sources. You don't take Linux kernel code and stick it into a BSD project, even though some of it was BSD originally, because Linux (every line of it) is GPLv2. If you want the code under a different license, you go to a differently licensed upstream source, such as the original author or the project we adapted it from. If you're not to lift code from Linux to BSD license it, lifting code from Linux to GPLv3 it is morally and legally no different. Linus made his decision, most of his lieutenants explicitly confirmed that decision. Please admit to yourselves that you're arguing that they should all change their minds because you don't like their decision, not because they didn't have the right to make it or that there's some loophole that invalidates it. What's your argument here, developers who are now saying "GPLv2" _accidentally_ gave permission to distribute their code under other licenses? Go ahead and take that to court buddy: you will lose. If you want to create a GPLv3 fork and can trace back specific files to authors who are ok with GPLv3, go create your fork. If you want to go work on Solaris, go do that. (But if you want to transplant Linux code into that thing, talk to Sun's lawyers first. And IBM's, and Red Hat's, and...) If you want each and every Linux developer who has ever stated a GPLv2 only position to either publicly reverse said position or to be ejected from the project and their code tracked down and removed from the kernel via forensic analysis (which is the only way the Linux kernel itself could ever go GPLv3), then do us a favor and shut up. > When you download a copy of the Linux kernel, you do not receive one > license because nobody could grant you one license. Yes you do, you receive GPLv2.
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to everyone - just to those that get the binaries. Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus' theory of tit-for-tat falls apart. Nope. case 1: Upstream provides source, tivo modifies and distributes it (to their customers). case 2: tivo provides source, end user modifies and distributes it (possibly to their customers, maybe to friends, possibly even to upstream). See? Tit for tat. Chris - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > running the Program is not restricted, ... > > The license does not cover running of the program. It doesn't restrict > it, but it doesn't cover it. Claiming otherwise is turning the GPL into > yet another dreaded EULA. For many juridisctions loading from disk into memory is copying and in some from memory to CPU cache a second copy. This is one reason as I understand it GPLv3 talks about "conveying" - to avoid that mess and confusion. > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program > with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of > a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under > the scope of this License. > > TiVo's firmware (and any restrictions it may carry) is not affected by > the GPLv2. Really irrelevant to the discussion. Tivo's firmware is up to them. Whether the resulting system permits them to include GPLv2 software with it is what matters. Alan - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 06/14/2007 02:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> No, by this twisted logic Tivo *cannot* modify that particular copy >>> any more than you can. They can modify *another* copy (just like you) >>> and they can *replace* the copy in your device with the new version >>> (unlike you). >> Again, replacing is one form of modification. > No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative > work. Modification does. Thanks. Good point. This convinces me that this doesn't work as a legal argument under copyright. I still stand by my understanding that this restriction violates the spirit of the license. And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have you) and refraining from providing the corresponding sources to that derived work (the key and the signature "build scripts"), I still think this specific case is a violation of the letter of the GPLv2, even if the FSF doesn't take this position. > It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the > right to install new versions on the device Actually, no. They withhold the right to run versions that they don't authorize themselves. Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobody had thought of technical measures to stop people from running modified copies of software. At least nobody involved in GPLv2, AFAIK. The landscape has changed, and GPLv3 is meant to defend this freedom that was taken for granted. > they never do (and really never could) "modify" the physical copy on > your device (which is your main argument). Qualifying it as the main argument is a bit of an exaggeration. I have a number of different arguments. The one about incomplete sources is the most solid IMHO. >> What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your >> editor? > Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact > copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;) Sorry, I really don't follow. Both versions of the kernel binary also started from a common source ancestor. Were you trying to make a distinction on these grounds? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 6/14/07, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel > > changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such > > the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled. > > Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me > -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs, > outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have > the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even > available in batches that small. > So your objection here is that one needs additional resources to do excersise their rights. Well, what about spending time and money to get education to be able to do programming work? Come on, again w/ the bullshit. TiVO does not try to prevent me from getting a CS degree, or buying a C reference. They _do_ prevent me from running modified code on my TiVO box. Being able to understand C and hardware, etc is also an additional restriction imposed on an average person. Not imposed by TiVO. Do you advocate that every copy of GPL program should be accompanied with an engineer who would explain how it all works? No, just that hardware vendors not lock me out of _my_ hardware if they've benefitted from code which was intended to be modifiable by end users. Dave - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No. I'm not stupid. > > > > The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions. > > So what? You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt > to remove them, and you'll keep TiVO happy. You really aren't thinking, are you? It's not about keeping Tivo happy. It's about keeping *me* happy. That's my primary (only) motivation for a license. And let's go back to why I selected the GPLv2 in the first place, shall we? I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge those improvements if I want to. Your *IDIOTIC* suggestion is explicitly against the whole POINT! By saying that I shouldn't accept contributions like that, you just INVALIDATED the whole point of the license in the first place! Can you really not see that? Linus - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or > other GPL'd software installed and place limits such that only > people that have purchased that hardware have access to the > "modified" source running on the device are following the letter, > and the spirit, of the GPL. WAIT, WAIT, THAT'S... :-) > Before you start yelling I'm wrong, think about it this way: they > make the source available to the people that they've given binary > versions to, and there is nothing stopping one of those people from > making the source available to the rest of the world. The *only* in your sentence betrayed you. If they place the limits such that nobody else can access the sources, they're in violation of the license. If they merely refrain from distributing the sources to others, but still enable the recipients to do so, this is not a violation of the license. But then IANAL. > *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to > everyone - just to those that get the binaries. Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus' theory of tit-for-tat falls apart. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel > changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such > the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled. Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs, outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even available in batches that small. So your objection here is that one needs additional resources to do excersise their rights. Well, what about spending time and money to get education to be able to do programming work? Being able to understand C and hardware, etc is also an additional restriction imposed on an average person. Do you advocate that every copy of GPL program should be accompanied with an engineer who would explain how it all works? -- Dmitry - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of > > situation is ok. > > Wow, do you remember the date when you first thought of this business > model? You know what? I'm intelligent. That's what you call people who see th consequences of their actions. I didn't see the *details* of what all the GPLv2 could result in, but yes, I claim that I knew what I was setting myself up for (in a license way) pretty much from the beginning. Did it take me by surprise how people actually ended up using Linux? It sure did. But has the GPLv2 itself ever surprised me? Not really. I read it back then, and yes, I understood what it meant. >From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. That was the first license, but more importantly, it was why I started Linux in the first place - my frustrations with Minix, and my memories of how painful it was to find an OS that I wanted to use and work with. (That, btw, was not Minix-only: I actually originally was thinking about literally buying a commercial Unix for my PC too. The price factor kept me away from the commercial unixes, and in retrospect I'm obviously very happy). So my first goal was "source must be available and it must be free (as in beer)". Which my first copyright license reflects very directly. What happened a few months into the thing was that some people actually wanted to make floppy images of Linux available to Linux users groups, but they didn't want to have to actually *fund* the floppies and their work themselves, so they wanted to sell them at cost (which the first license actually didn't allow!). And I realized that the money angle really wasn't what I ever really cared about. I cared about availability, but people sure could get paid for their effort in distributing the thing, as long as the source code remained open. I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the improvements back. So given that background, which license do you _think_ I should have chosen? And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than the GPLv3? I don't care about the hardware. I'll use it, but it's not what Linux is all about. Linux is about something much bigger than any individual device. And yeah, maybe I'm just better at abstracting things. Maybe I prefer seeing the big picture, and that the individual devices don't matter. What matters is the improvement in the *software*, because while each physical device is a one-off thing, in the long term, it's the *development* that matters. And the GPLv2 protects that. It's a bit like evolution: individual organisms matter to *themselves* and to their immediate neighborhood, but in the end, the individuals will be gone and forgotten, and what remains is the development. In those terms, I care about the DNA, and the *process* or recombination and the bigger picture. Any individual organism? Not so much. It's all part of a much bigger tapestry, and closed hardware is more like an eunuch (or a worker bee): it won't pass on its legacy, but it might help the people who do. So instead of thinking of Tivo as something "evil", I think of Tivo as the working bee who will never pass on its genes, but it actually ended up helping the people who *do* pass on their genes: the kernel (to a small degree - not so much because of the patches themselves, as the *mindshare* in the PVR space) and projects like MythTV (again, not so much because of any patches, but because it helped grow peoples understanding of the problem space!). Let's take another example: BitKeeper. The FSF follower people seem to view BitKeeper as something "evil". To me, BitKeeper was not just a great tool, but it also ended up being something that showed others how things *could* be done. And the world - including the open source world - is a better place for it! See? In the big picture, individual devices and even projects won't matter. In a hundred years, I'll be long dead, and nobody will care. But in a hundred years, I hope that the "live and let live" open source mentality will still flourish, and maybe "Linux" itself won't live on, but some of the memories and impact may. And *that* is what matters. A Tivo? It's just a toy. Who cares? It's not important. But source code that evolves? THAT can change the world! Linus - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 6/14/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And what about people who can't modify the Linux kernel? They don't know C. They don't know how to use a shell. They're not familiar with UNIX operating systems at all. Maybe they aren't smart enough to modify kernel code. I learned C in part by modifying the Linux kernel and running the modified kernel on hardware I own, and enabling precisely that kind of tinkering is what the "spirit" of the GPL is about, as is quite plain (to me) from the preamble. The GPL is about having the legal right to modify the software and being able to put other people's distributed improvements back into the original code base. I agree that is what the letter of the GPLv<3 is about. It does not guarantee that you will actually be able to modify the software and get it to work on some particular hardware. Please don't conflate my endorsement of the "spirit" of the GPL with Alexandre's assertion that the GPLv2 forbids TiVOisation. I don't agree with him. My point is that people arguing that the spirit of the GPL doesn't revolve around the freedom of the end user to modify the software *and* run modified copies seem to be missing the point. Linus gets that, as he said in a previous message, he just doesn't personally care about freedom defined that way. Dave - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? I fail to see the distinction you're making between GPLv2 and GPLv3. AFAICT, with GPLv3, there still is a simple guarantee that every licensee has exactly the same rights. Sure, GPLv3 follows the spirit of the GPLs more strictly than GPLv2 possibly could. How is that "forcing ethics and morals" any more than GPLv2 was? > Ah, but I never said I had a GPLv1 program. I thought you had a copy of Linux and, per what you'd said before, there was GPLv1 code in it. I was just trying to make it easy for you. > 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. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying-1.0.html >> > 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. How about the "no further restrictions" bit? > 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. > Yes, but the fact that it would cost money to get the suit dropped is a > problem. Again, how are these arguments against GPLv3? They apply equally to any other license, including GPLv2. >> 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. You're talking about the legal terms. The spirit of the license is a very different matter. It can guide the interpretation of the legal terms, but the author is at a better position than anyone else to know what he meant. >> 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 Well, then, lock down the software. Make it irreplaceable, even by yourself. Problem solved. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> So how come they can so easily move to GPLv3 ? > Don't they have to have permission from all of those contributors (many > of which are Linux companies and distributors who might prefer staying > at GPLv2) ? The FSF uses copyright assignments to ensure the entire project is under FSF control. Linux does not - there are benefits to both approaches. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> I see what you mean. IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works. > There *are* lawyers who have said that what Tivo did was legal. What I wrote above had ZERO to do with TiVO. Please re-read the message you responded to, and the two previous messages in that sub-thread for the context you snipped out. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional >> permission for Tivoization? > No. I'm not stupid. > The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions. So what? You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt to remove them, and you'll keep TiVO happy. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:24:19PM -0400, Dave Neuer wrote: > Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me > -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs, > outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have > the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even > available in batches that small. Yes I am serious. I wouldn't want to buy any such locked down hardware, but that still doesn't mean that I don't think it fits within the spirit of the GPLv2. > This argument seems totally disingenuous to me. The GPLv<3 was written > in a time when the majority of sotware to which the license was > applied was written for general purpose computers. The "user" was the > owner of the computer, and Freedom 0 was about letting that user RUN > modified copies of the software. > > Things have changed a lot; we're surrounded by embedded computers, and > Freedom 0 seems to strongly imply I should have the right to run > modified versions of the Free Software I own on the hardware I OWN. Or > is the future of Open Source that you'll be able to hack on free > software as long as you work for Intel, Red Hat, TiVO, Google or OSDL? > Or own many-thousand-$$ fab printer? I think it depends on the type of hardware. Certainly I agree some types of hardware really should not allow you to change the code on them due to the potential risks from doing so. Hence if a license starts to get into the grey area that covers such things, it is getting onto some thin ice that is probably should stay off. You risk excluding things you didn't intend to exclude while almost certainly still missing things you would like to have excluded. I agree that for many devices I could buy, being able to change the code on it would be great, and that there generally is no good reason to deny me from doing it, but I don't think it is worth the risk to put such a requirement into the license, and I certainly never read the GPLv2 to in any way imply such a thing. Apparently from what I can see, Linus never read any such thing in it either when he chose to use it. In fact I think you have to already have a very narrow preset view in order to read the GPLv2 in such as way as to think it intended to prevent such things. > Look, I totally respect Linus' and others' position that the license > is an inappropriate way to enforce what they feel are hardware design > decisions, but can we dispense w/ the silly argument that the intent > of the GPL is fullfilled as long as the user is allowed to modify the > software where modify means "imagine a world where they'd be able to > run" it? It seems many people really do feel that it is fulfilled. They may think it is a stupid hardware design and they may also chose not to buy such hardware, but at the same time they can be perfectly willing to say that as long as the modified sources are provided, that is good enough since further development of the source can be done, never mind what you can do with that particular locked down door stop the code was modified to support. Not everyone views the world through the eyes of RMS. -- Len Sorensen - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
* Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:55:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > This "right to modify" and "have the same rights as the hardware maker" > > arguments are _totally_ bogus, they were made up after the fact, just > > because quite apparently RMS had a fit over Tivo and started this verbal > > (and legal) vendetta. The FSF is now attempting to rewrite history and > > pretends that this "always was in the GPLv2" and applies this newly > > thought up concept to the GPLv3 in a way that substantially departs from > > the spirit of the GPLv2. Which spirit the GPLv2 explicitly promised to > > uphold in Section 9. Which could make any contrary section of the GPLv3 > > unenforceable, when applied to "GPLv2 or later" licensed software. > > That, BTW, is perhaps the worst problem with v2 (inherited by v3). WTF > _is_ "the spirit of the license" and who gets to decide if two > licenses are in the same spirit? [...] yeah. I see this as: "RMS does not want to let go of the community". This clause amounts to "power to relicense" _vast_ amounts of free software and this is by far the worst problem with the "GPLv3 process". The GPLv3 process was pretended to be "open", but regardless of what the "GPL comittees" said, in the end it was one person: the president of the FSF (Richard Stallman) who singlehandedly decided what went into the GPLv3 draft and what not. For example he singlehandedly has ignored all the criticism that the the "Tivo" section has received. And note how hypocritic RMS's position is here. Where is that freedom when it comes to the licensing process? Why does RMS have more rights over modifications to the license than all the other free software developers have? Should not he give that freedom to others too? Shouldnt there be a fair and just election, a vote? You know, that democracy thing. And with his current attitude he affects somewhere around of 1 billion lines of free software. Via a license that is just a few hunded lines long. I believe RMS should accept the fact that most of that code was written without people having bought into his ideology, and he should accept _responsibility_ for the power he has acquired by genius or by accident (your choice) and he should try to _understand_ how those people tick - instead of trying to further his own personal agenda. He shouldnt say what amounts to "oh, my original intent was this and that, if you didnt understand it and still wrote code and used the default 'or later' license, it's your damn fault". He should accept that what happened happened, after he wrote 100,000 lines of original GNU code another ten thousand people wrote about a _ten thousand times more_ code. He should also accept that the "open source" community is about many other things, and it is alot more varied than his thinking is. He does not have to _like_ Tivo, but he should try to _understand_ them, and he should be compassionate about other people's right to have their own opinion and their own approaches to freedom. It is very clear that he has not even attempted to do that so far. And the best way to start would be to significantly limit the 'same spirit' clause by putting in something like this: 'in the event of a section of this license being rules unenforceable by a court of law the FSF has the option to modify the license in the most minimal fashion to make that section enforceable again'. but this would mean RMS would have to give up power irreversibly. Will that ever happen? Ingo - 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/
RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> Can you explain to me how it is that the Tivoization provisions (the > only objection you have to GPLv3) conflict with this? Is it really that hard to understand? GPLv2 applied only to works people chose to place under that license or to works that contain so much code that someone chose to place under that license that they are legally considered a derivative work. GPLv3, on the other hand, attempts to extend control over works that don't contain any code that anyone ever chose to place under the GPL. This is a night and day difference. The GPLv2 stands within the legal scope of copyright. If I create a work, I have some rights to control that work. If you create a work *based* *on* *my* *work* I can retain some rights over how this new work is used because it actually *contains* parts of my work in it. The GPLv2 makes no attempt to exercise any control over anything else. The GPLv3, however, attempts to leverage copyright control to restrict what can be done with things completely outside the covered works. DS - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, with regard to TIVO, why are you saying that GPL shoudl affect > their hardware I'm not. I'm just saying that TiVO, as a licensee of Linux, agreed that it wouldn't impose further restrictions on recipients of Linux on the exercise of the rights granted by the license. So, just like it couldn't use a patent to stop people from modifying or sharing Linux, it can't use the hardware to do that. And if they fail to supply portions of the functional source code in order to prevent modified versions to run, they are infringing the spirit and quite possibly the letter of the license. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:42:44PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as > >> > you > >> > see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to > >> > do > >> > with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code. > >> > >> > How hard is that to accept? > >> > >> Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the > >> GPL says. > > > What part of the word "expect" did you not understand? > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/24/246 > > It asks everybody - regardless of circumstance - for the same thing. > It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to > be given back to the common good. You can use the end result any > way you want (and if you want to use it for "bad" things, be my > guest), but we ask the same exact thing of everybody - give your > modifications back. > > > And whats your point here anyway? > > The the GPL doesn't do that. It encourages that. But what it asks > for is respect for the freedoms it defends WRT the software licensed > under it. Reading the above you are writing exact the same as Linus here but refusing to accept it and without usign the same words. In the end of the day both things says: "please give back" And the rest is just worthless nitpicking - in my local language is it "flueknepperi". Sam - 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/
RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me > -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs, > outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have > the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even > available in batches that small. > > This argument seems totally disingenuous to me. The GPLv<3 was written > in a time when the majority of sotware to which the license was > applied was written for general purpose computers. The "user" was the > owner of the computer, and Freedom 0 was about letting that user RUN > modified copies of the software. And what about people who can't modify the Linux kernel? They don't know C. They don't know how to use a shell. They're not familiar with UNIX operating systems at all. Maybe they aren't smart enough to modify kernel code. The GPL is about having the legal right to modify the software and being able to put other people's distributed improvements back into the original code base. It does not guarantee that you will actually be able to modify the software and get it to work on some particular hardware. I certainly understood the GPL as ensuring the right to get the source code so that you could do something else with it. I never understood the GPL to be about getting hardware to do something else just because it ran GPL'd software. DS - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tivo *respected* the freedoms, and gave source back, and gave you all the > same rights you had to Linux originally, and to their modifications. > How stupid are you to not acknowledge that? > Tivo limited their *hardware*, not the software. Have you ever wondered *why* it limited the hardware? Is it per chance such that I cannot modify the software that runs on the hardware? How is that respecting the freedoms? How is this not imposing further restrictions? And, more importantly, how is it that permitting this makes for *better* compliance with your tit-for-tat conceptions about the GPL? I.e., if Tivoization is the only issue that you think makes GPLv3 a worse license than GPLv2, and you like GPLv2 because of this tit-for-tat, surely you should be able to explain why Tivoization promotes this tit-for-tat notion better than GPLv3, right? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of > situation is ok. Wow, do you remember the date when you first thought of this business model? > And you are apparently totally unable to understand - or respect - that I > actually made an informed decision that happens to be different from what > you *wish* it were. While you insist in the nonsensical tit-for-tat argument and "in kind" retributions, I don't think I have much of a choice, because this is not what the GPL is about, this is not what it requires of licensees. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> What the GPL *does* say is that you can't "add additional >> restrictions to the license" > >Not quite. It's more general than that: > > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' > exercise of the rights granted herein. GPLv2 section 0 says: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, ... The license does not cover running of the program. It doesn't restrict it, but it doesn't cover it. Claiming otherwise is turning the GPL into yet another dreaded EULA. Nowhere does the GPLv2 define modification as "modify and run in place". The Preamble emphasizes sharing; hardware is a fixed object and can't be shared in the same fashion as software. Also, GPLv2 section 2 includes: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. TiVo's firmware (and any restrictions it may carry) is not affected by the GPLv2. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you are not "entitled" to dictate the hardware's design (or any other > copyrighted work's design), Agreed. > By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the > license too: No, you're confusing two very different situations. In the case of TiVO, it's getting out of its way to make sure users can't enjoy one of the freedoms that the license says it ought to pass on. In the cases you mentioned, the company would have to get out of its way to put the other parties on equal grounds. The former is bad, it's against the spirit of the license, it's a further restriction. The latter would be nice to have, but it would be wrong to demand it. You're picturing the difference between blocking the way such that you can't get there, and actually taking you there. What the GPL seeks is just that you don't get in the way. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 06/14/2007 09:29 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote: On 06/14/2007 06:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: It's totally pointless to try to "force" people to be good. That's like "curing" gay people. Not going to happen. Tangent, but that could in fact quite easily be construed as saying that gay people aren't good which I hope is not the point you are making :-/ I certainly read that as 'trying to force people to be good is just as crazy as trying to force people to not be gay'. Some people are good, and some aren't (no idea why), and similarly some people are gay and some aren't (again, no idea why). Neither can be changed by declaring that it must be changed. Yes, just my sense of humour, I'm afraid... ;-) Rene. - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you >> > see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do >> > with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code. >> >> > How hard is that to accept? >> >> Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the >> GPL says. > What part of the word "expect" did you not understand? http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/24/246 It asks everybody - regardless of circumstance - for the same thing. It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to be given back to the common good. You can use the end result any way you want (and if you want to use it for "bad" things, be my guest), but we ask the same exact thing of everybody - give your modifications back. > And whats your point here anyway? The the GPL doesn't do that. It encourages that. But what it asks for is respect for the freedoms it defends WRT the software licensed under it. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> What about if your GPL program ends up in a piece of hardware > (e.g. a ROM, > or an embedded ROM, or if it's some GPL code from OpenCores, as gate > netlist in silicon)? My interpretation is that you need a permission from > the author for doing that, unless there's an easy way to replace > it with a > modified copy (e.g. if you put the OpenCores stuff into an FPGA, > replacing > the configuration PROM would do it). The GPL does not require it to be easy in fact to modify the piece of software. It just requires that you have the right to modify it, that is, that there be no legal obstacles in your way. You are entitled to the source code in modifiable, understandable form. There are no legal restrictions, other than those in the GPL and in the law, on what you can do with it. What you are actually *able* to do, however, depends upon a wide variety of factors way outside the scope of the GPL. By the way, I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that *if* you provide me a binary made from GPL'd code that required a key to produce that binary, I am entitled to that key. The key is precisely analogous to any other piece of source code -- it is mathematically 'combined' and 'processed' by tools to produce the final, distributed executable. If there's some rational basis for a legal difference between a signing key and a header file, I don't know what it is. DS - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 > >> >
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 06/14/2007 02:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: No, by this twisted logic Tivo *cannot* modify that particular copy any more than you can. They can modify *another* copy (just like you) and they can *replace* the copy in your device with the new version (unlike you). Again, replacing is one form of modification. No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative work. Modification does. You've chosen to attach a physical dimension to "program copy" and I'm arguing that even under this distorted line of reasoning you can't support your position: The customer gets the copy that TiVO stored in the hard disk in the device it sells. And it's that copy that the customer is entitled to modify because TiVO is still able to modify it. * Tivo takes public sources, modifies them and builds a brand new blob * Tivo installs this new copy on the device, most likely side-by-side with the old one - notice how the new copy is derived from public sources and has absolutely nothing to do with the old version (heck, it can be a totally different kernel for what it's worth) * Tivo deletes the old copy from the device It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the right to install new versions on the device - they never do (and really never could) "modify" the physical copy on your device (which is your main argument). What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your editor? Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;) --- fm - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:55:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > This "right to modify" and "have the same rights as the hardware maker" > arguments are _totally_ bogus, they were made up after the fact, just > because quite apparently RMS had a fit over Tivo and started this verbal > (and legal) vendetta. The FSF is now attempting to rewrite history and > pretends that this "always was in the GPLv2" and applies this newly > thought up concept to the GPLv3 in a way that substantially departs from > the spirit of the GPLv2. Which spirit the GPLv2 explicitly promised to > uphold in Section 9. Which could make any contrary section of the GPLv3 > unenforceable, when applied to "GPLv2 or later" licensed software. That, BTW, is perhaps the worst problem with v2 (inherited by v3). WTF _is_ "the spirit of the license" and who gets to decide if two licenses are in the same spirit? As soon as we get to "well, original authors of the license are the final authority on that", we are in the "I've always said ..." country. Look, humans _suck_ at revision control, especially that of our intentions and opinions. It doesn't even require malice, all ancedotes about spouses/mothers-in-law/etc. nonwithstanding. We all easily fall into belief that we had always meant what we mean now; that even if we said something different, it was just a poor wording; that if we had known what we know now, we would certainly had come to the same conclusions we have come to now. "In the same spirit" is just about the weakest requirement in that area. I.e. the most prone to drift, especially when one is an ideologist and thus has severely decayed integrity to start with. Call it a professional disease of crystal ball users - or a prerequisite for playing a visionary, if you will ;-/ - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled. Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs, outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even available in batches that small. This argument seems totally disingenuous to me. The GPLv<3 was written in a time when the majority of sotware to which the license was applied was written for general purpose computers. The "user" was the owner of the computer, and Freedom 0 was about letting that user RUN modified copies of the software. Things have changed a lot; we're surrounded by embedded computers, and Freedom 0 seems to strongly imply I should have the right to run modified versions of the Free Software I own on the hardware I OWN. Or is the future of Open Source that you'll be able to hack on free software as long as you work for Intel, Red Hat, TiVO, Google or OSDL? Or own many-thousand-$$ fab printer? Look, I totally respect Linus' and others' position that the license is an inappropriate way to enforce what they feel are hardware design decisions, but can we dispense w/ the silly argument that the intent of the GPL is fullfilled as long as the user is allowed to modify the software where modify means "imagine a world where they'd be able to run" it? Dave - 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/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: > They let you have the code and make changes to it, Not to the software installed in the device. What they do is like an author A who distributes a program to user B under a non-Free Software license, and to user C under a Free Software license. C passes the program on to B under the same license. Now B has two copies of the program. One is free, the other is not. Except that TiVO had no right to distribute the program under non-Free terms in the first place, because it was not the author, and the license it had explicitly said it couldn't impose further restrictions. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
