[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    On Jun 21, 2007, (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:

    > Apparently the only restrictions ever permitted are the ones the FSF
    > thinks of.

    Where does this nonsensical idea come from? How does it follow that,
    from FSF offering a licensing option to authors, you conclude that
    nobody could ever establish whatever other restrictions they liked?

    > So really what the GPL v3 wants to have is to make sure that the user
    > can reproduce from the sources a bit for bit identical copy of the
    > binaries?

    No, this is not enough to enable someone to adapt the software to
    one's own needs.

    > Too bad compilers that put time stamps and such into the
    > binary would make that imposible.

    This would be the copyright author imposing such a restriction, not
    the software distributor.

    > I don't think there is any way that can be written into the GPL that
    > can prevent all loop holes for how to make signed binaries.

    Which is one possible reason to explain why the FSF switched to the
    'Installation Information' approach.

    > There doesn't have to be an agreement. The software company could just
    > release specs for a hardware design and let others freely go and build
    > them from that design.

    Aah, so the software company has designed a mechanism to restrict
    users' freedoms, and is just leaving it up to third parties to
    complete the implementation? I think these design documents could be
    used in a court to prove intent to impose restrictions on the users,
    but IANAL.

    >> However, if there's no such agreement, if the copyright holder has no
    >> copyright claims over the hardware or works shipped in it, there's
    >> nothing the copyright holder can do about it, and that's probably how
    >> it should be, since a copyright license (!= contract) can't possibly
    >> prohibit people from creating hardware limited in function, it can
    >> only tell people that, in order for them to have permission to modify
    >> or distribute the covered work, they must abide by certain conditions.
    >> And if they don't want to abide by the conditions, and they don't
    >> manage to obtain a license from the copyright holders that doesn't
    >> impose conditions they can't accept, they just can't modify or
    >> distribute the work.

    > But if the hardware ships with only code that simply waits for the user
    > to provide some code for it to isntall (which has to be signed in a way
    > the hardware likes), then the hardware has nothing to do with the
    > license of the software.

    Correct. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?

    > I hope no one does this, but I still don't see how the GPLv3 draft deals
    > with this case, or even how it could deal with it.

    It doesn't, and it probably shouldn't.

    Alexandre Oliva
    FSF Latin America Board Member
    Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{,}
    Free Software Evangelist oliva@{,}
    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: 2007-06-21 21:47    [W:0.039 / U:9.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site