Over there on LKML... <chuckles> Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the > > license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd > > like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the > > earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so? > > No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a > misunderstanding. Now it's been limited to "consumer devices" (after I > pointed out some of the _obvious_ problems with the original language), > and the only people who called anything a "misunderstanding" were the ones > that tried to point to *other* points in the license altogether (ie there > was also a "drm section", which didn't really seem to say anything much at > all). > > Rms calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo > never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact > that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content > producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware. > > The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not cover boot loaders and > hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware > can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only > a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care. > > > Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of > > two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or > > preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the > > former. > > No, it was not the former. And I think the whole "the kernel developers > misunderstand the license" crap that the FSF was saying (several times) > was very trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of > the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by > pointing to *another* part of the license. > > And you're just parrotting their idiotic line. > > > Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never > > agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2 > > models better your intentions than GPLv3. > > And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I "misunderstood" the > "spirit of the GPL". > > Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better > than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* > things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, > does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the > license. > > I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is > the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, > and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't > think so. > > > Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris > > very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting > > others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect > > others' freedoms, has never been what moved you. Rather, you seem to > > perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution, > > rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires. In > > fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago. > > I have said *exactly* that many many times. > > The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and > you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid. > > I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's > what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies) > can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair. > > The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a > reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_ > confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they > did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because > the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do. > > > In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it > > didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms. > > That's a lot of bullshit. You are apparently the grand poobah, and can > decide _which_ freedoms and for _what_ others' that matter. > > I respect peoples freedoms too. I just disagree with the FSF on what that > slippery word means. > > The fact that you are unable to even apparently fathom this fundamental > issue, and that the FSF thinks that they own the definition of "freedom" > is _your_ problem. > > You're acting like some Alice-in-Wonderland character, saying that your > definition of words is the only one that matter. And that others are > "confused". Read up on your humpty-dumpty some day. > > I'm damn fed up with the FSF being the "protector of freedoms", and also > feeling that they can define what those freedoms mean. > > The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what > the words mean to suit their agenda. > > Linus
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have > > the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for > > this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get > > it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of > > it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. > > > > To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid > > anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the > > rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities > > for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify > > it. > > > > [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or > > for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have > > > > > > Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet > > this spirit? > > What kind of logic is that? It sounds like "Can you prove that God doesn't > exist?" > > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says > that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*. > > So the whole "to protect these rights, we take away other rigths" argument > hinges on the false premise that the new language in GPLv3 is somehow > needed. It's not. You still had the right to distribute the software (and > modify it), even if the *hardware* is limited to only one version. > > In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted, > and yes, I think that violates the spirit of the GPLv2 preamble! > > Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying "You can > not use this software to make a weapon". Do you see the problem? It > restricts peoples rights, would you agree? Would you _also_ agree that it > doesn't actually follow that "To protect your rights" logic AT ALL? > > And this is exactly where the GPLv3 *diverges* from the above logic. If I > build hardware, and sell it with software installed, you can still copy > and modify the software. You may not do so within the confines of the > hardware I built, but the hardware was never under the license in the > first place. > > In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it protects > them. It does *not* cause any additional stated freedoms - quite the > reverse. It tries to free up stuff that was never mentioned in the first > place. > > And then the FSF has the gall to call themselves the "protector of > freedoms", and claim that everybody else is evil. What a crock. > > In other words, if you want to argue for the changes in GPLv3, you need to > CHANGE THE PREAMBLE TOO! You should change: > > When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not > price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you > have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for > this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it > if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it > in new free programs, that you can do so in place on your devices, > even if those devices weren't licensed under the GPL; and that > you know you can do these things. > > where I added the "that you can do so in place on your devices, even if > those devices weren't licensed under the GPL". > > That wasn't there in the original. Yet it's what the GPLv3 tries to shove > down our throats in the name of "freedom". > > I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last six > years, but there's been a lot of "protecting our freedoms" going on. And > it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes "protecting your > freedom" is *anything*but*! > > Linus Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. > > Stop right there. > > You seem to make the mistake to think that software is something physical. > > > TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. > > No. If you were logical (which you are not), you would admit that > (a) physical property is very different from intellectual property (the > FSF seems to admit that when it suits their needs, not otherwise) > (b) They never modified "a copy" of Linux - they simply replaced it with > "another copy" of Linux. The only thing that actually got *modified* > was their hardware! > > The first copy didn't "morph" into a second copy. There was no "physical" > software that was molded. They do need to follow the GPLv2, since clearly > they _do_ distribute Linux, but you have all the same rights as they do > with regard to the *software*. > > The fact that they maintained some control of the *hardware* (and some > software they wrote too) they designed is _their_ choice. > > What Tivo did and do, is to distribute hardware that can *contain* a copy > of Linux (or just about anything else, for that matter - again, there's > a difference between physical and intellectual property). > > And their hardware (and firmware) will run some integrity checks on > *whatever* copies of software they have. This is all totally outside > Linux itself. > > Btw, according to your _insane_ notion of "a copy" of software, you can > never distribute GPL'd software on a CD-ROM, since you've taken away the > right of people to modify that CD-ROM by burning and fixating it. So > according to your (obvously incorrect) reading of the GPLv2, every time > Red Hat sends anybody a CD-ROM, they have restricted peoples right to > modify the software on that CD-ROM bymaking it write-only. > > See? Your reading of the license doesn't _work_. Mine does. What I say is > that when you distribute software, you don't distribute "a copy" of > software, you distribute the _information_ about the software, so that > others can take it and modify it. And notice? My reading of the license > must be the correct one, since my reading actually makes sense, unlike > yours. > > And yes, when Tivo distributes Linux, they give everybody else all the > same rights they have - with respect to Linux! No, not with respect to > their hardware, but that's a totally different thing, and if you cannot > wrap your mind around the difference between "the software that is on a > CD" and the "piece of plastic that is the CD", and see that when you > replace "CD" with any other medium, the equation doesn't change, I don't > know what to say. > > > It doesn't give the recipients the same right. > > > > Oops. > > > > Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me. > > Only if you extend the license to the *hardware*. Oops. Which it never did > before. > > In other words, you basically try to change the rules. The GPLv2 clearly > states that it's about software, not hardware. All the language you quoted > talks about software. > > In other words, the only way to argue that I'm wrong is to try to twist > the meanings of the words, and say that words only mean one specific thing > that _you_ claim are their meaning. > > And I'm saying you act like Humpty Dumpty when you do. You can argue that > way all you like, but your argument is nonsensical. It's akin to the > argument that "God is perfect. Perfect implies existence. Therefore God > exists". > > That kind of argument only works if you *define* the words to suit your > argument. But it's a logical fallacy. > > And I'm saying that the GPLv2 can mroe straightforwardly be read the way I > read it - to talk about software, and to realize that software is not "a > copy", it's a more abstract thing. You get Linux when you buy a Tivo (or > preferably - don't buy it, since you don't like it), and that means that > they have to give you access to and control over the SOFTWARE. But nowhere > in the GPL (in the preamble or anywhere else) does it talk about giving > you control over the HARDWARE, and the only way you can twist the GPLv2 to > say that is by trying to re-define what the words mean. > > And then you call *me* confused? After you yourself admitted that the FSF > actually agrees with me, and that what Tivo did was not a license > violation? > > Trust me, I'm not the confused person here. > > I'm perfectly fine with other people wanting to extend the license to > cover the hardware, but I am *not* perfectly fine with people then trying > to claim I'm confused just because I don't agree with them. > > Face it: the GPLv3 is a _new_ license. Making funamentally _different_ and > _new_ restrictions that do not exist in the GPLv2, and do not exist in the > preamble. Any language attempts to make it appear otherwise are just > sophistry. > > And btw, just to make it clear: as far as I'm concerned, you can read the > preamble and the word "freedom" and "rigths" _your_ way. I'm not objecting > to that at all. If you read it so that you think it's wrong to distribute > GPL'd software on a CD-ROM, that's really not my problem. You do whatever > you want to, and think the license means whatever you want to. > > What I'm objecting to is how you claim that anybody that doesn't follow > your interpretation is "confused". When clearly even the FSF lawyers agree > that my interpretation was _correct_, and I don't think your > interpretation even makes sense! > > Linus Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > "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." > > > > The question is whether this includes private keys. > > No. That's the question as the FSF would like to frame it. > > But the real fact is that it *not* the right question. > > You can install Linux on a Tivo all you like. Take out the harddisk, > install your own version of Linux on it, and put it back in. That's pretty > much how Tivo installs Linux on the things too, afaik, although they don't > need to take the disk out (since they just assemble it). > > No magic needed. In fact, no keys needed. > > Now, maybe the hardware/firmware knows to expect a certain SHA1 on that > disk, that's a different issue. Tivo could even tell you exactly what the > SHA1 they are checking is. Maybe they have a list of SHA1's, and maybe > they have a way to upgrade THEIR OWN FIRMWARE with new SHA1's, and they > could still tell you all of them, and be very open. > > And you could actually replace their copy of Linux with another one. It > would have to have the same SHA1 to actually start _running_, but that's > the hardware's choice. > > See? No private keys needed. No magic install scripts. It really _is_ that > easy. > > Of course, using private keys, and signing the image with them is possibly > a technically more flexible/easier/more obvious way to do it, but in the > end, do you really want to argue technical details? > > But I think the whole thing is totally misguided, because the fact is, the > GPLv2 doesn't talk about "in place" or "on the same hardware". > > So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted > by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But > do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on > master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT! > > So by the idiotic logic of "modifying in place", I'm violating the GPLv2 > every time I'm makign a release - because I make Linux available, but I > don't actually give people the "same rights" to that particular copy that > I have! Oh horrors of horrors! You need to make a _copy_ of the thing I > distribute, and then you have the same rights I have to that _copy_, but > you never had the same rights to the thing I actually distributed! > > And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating > the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a > f*cking moron! You have the right to modify *copies* of the kernel I > distribute, but you cannot actually modify the _actual_ entity that I made > available! > > See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo > distribution? The rights that the GPLv2 gives to "the software", is to > something much bigger than "the particular copy of the software". > > Can people really not see the difference between "the software" and "a > particular encoded copy of the software"? > > I'm sorry, but people who cannot see that difference are just stupid. > > Linus regards, alexander. -- "Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them." -- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply' _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss