[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: GPLv3 Position Statement
    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.


    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: 2006-09-30 07:15    [W:0.033 / U:34.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site