Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: GPLv3 Position Statement | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:50:43 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 13:08 +0100, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote: > > However, once they comply with the distribution requirements, > > they're free to do whatever they want with the resulting OS in their > > printer ... including checking for only HP authorised ink > > cartridges. You can take exception to this check and not buy the > > resulting printer, but you can't tell them not to do the check > > without telling them how they should be using the embedded platform. > > I don't see where the GPLv3 forbids such checks. Which section are > you thinking of? In my understanding, it says only that HP must give > users the keys to install modified software. From section 1 (of the > July draft):
This was an illustration of the difference between use and distribution. I don't claim GPLv3 limits these activities; I was just using the example I was given.
> The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or > authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified > versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of > use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the > same range of circumstances. > > So the user, having the keys, can remove the cartridge check. HP > might not like it and may choose not to distribute GPLv3 software with > the printer, but that's a separate story.
Under GPLv3, yes. That's one of the fulcrums of the argument. As one of the copyright holders, I don't want to get into the business of dictating terms for uses to which linux (or other open source software) is put. I fundamentally don't want to require in the copyright licence that device manufacturers using embedded linux have to give me the key. I'd love to persuade them why modifiable hardware is a good thing (linksys WRT54GL) and give them market reasons for allowing it. But I don't want to compel them. The pragmatic reason is that to impose compulsion I have to forsee all the end uses (this is why we get drafting issues with the GPLv3). However, the moral reason is that I believe this type of compulsion to be wrong in principle: it acts as a damper on innovation if everyone has to keep looking over their shoulder and considering what my wishes might be in software they use. Fundamentally, I want people to do things I never even dreamed of with my software.
James
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |