Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 | From | Alexandre Oliva <> | Date | Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:45:05 -0300 |
| |
On Jun 21, 2007, lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (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 http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/
| |