[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
On Thursday 02 February 2006 04:37, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Pierre Ossman wrote:
>>> The point is not only getting access to the source code, but also
>>> being able to change it. Being able to freely study the code is
>>> only half of the beauty of the GPL. The other half, being able to
>>> change it, can be very effectively stopped using DRM.
>> No it cannot.
>> Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes
>> on somebody elses hardware. But it in no way changes the fact that
>> you got
>I don't consider things I've bought to be somebody elses hardware. The
>whole attitude of the big manufacturer that kindly gives me permission
>to use their product only how they see fit is very disgusting to me.
>> The difference? The hardware may only run signed kernels. The fact
>> that the hardware is closed is a _hardware_ license issue. Not a
>> software license issue. I'd suggest you take it up with your
>> hardware vendor, and quite possibly just decide to not buy the
>> hardware. Vote with your feet. Join the OpenCores groups. Make your
>> own FPGA's.
>I'm concerned that in a few years time such systems will be rare and
>hard to come by (possibly even illegal). I find such system pissing
> all over the spirit of the GPL.

And I too see this scenario developing as the years go by, prodded to
keep it in motion at every twitch of a muscle to do other wise by the
likes of M$ because it cements the last brick into his domination of
the world scene. It scares me bad enough to keep my powder dry & in
good supply if you get my drift. DRM-less hardware will vanish from
the supply chain unless smuggled in from au or nz. And I do mean
smuggled, with severe penalties for being caught at it.

> To me, the GPL has always been about
> the freedom of modifying (in place, not making a clone).
>It's a fine line before we are in the territory of restricting what
>software can be used for. But for me this is not about restricting
> their rights as much as it is preventing them from restricting mine.
Right on.

>> And it's important to realize that signed kernels that you can't run
>> in modified form under certain circumstances is not at all a bad
>> idea in many cases.
>> For example, distributions signing the kernel modules (that are
>> distributed under the GPL) that _they_ have compiled, and having
>> their kernels either refuse to load them entirely (under a "secure
>> policy") or marking the resulting kernel as "Tainted" (under a "less
>> secure" policy) is a GOOD THING.
>I dislike the former but the latter is acceptable (and, as you say, in
>some cases desirable). There is a big difference between refusing to
> run and printing/logging warnings.
>> Notice how the current GPLv3 draft pretty clearly says that Red Hat
>> would have to distribute their private keys so that anybody sign
>> their own versions of the modules they recompile, in order to
>> re-create their own versions of the signed binaries that Red Hat
>> creates. That's INSANE.

Where are the guys in the white jackets when we need them?

>> Btw, what about signed RPM archives? How well do you think a secure
>> auto-updater would work if it cannot trust digital signatures?
>I'm arguing the principle here, not the wording of the current draft.
>Signatures that are required for execution should be covered, those
> that result in warnings should not be. Imagine the shit storm if Red
> Hat decided to ship an rpm that didn't allow packages that weren't
> signed by them.
>It's basically about control. I do not find it reasonable to allow the
>vendor control of what goes or not on systems I've bought. They're
> free to put systems in place so they can detect that I've fiddled
> with it so they can deny me support. But if they want to make a
> completely closed system then they'll have to develop it on their own
> and not use my code. "Look but don't touch" is not sufficient for me.

Amen. And on that point, we need a better method to detect that they
have 'borrowed' FOSS code, and an expensive lawsuit settled in FOSS
favor to set an enforcement example, but I have no imagination of a
method they couldn't just as easily remove IF they had a coder worthy
of the name of coder who wanted to be so larsonous.

>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to
>More majordomo info at
>Please read the FAQ at

Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-02 15:48    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean