Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:57:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
> >>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
> >>
> >> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
> >> this would be "mission accomplished".
> >
> > This is insane.  You start with a lofty ideal involving "freedom", and
> > when you end up with a meaningless technicality (and in technical terms
> > a change for the worse) you consider it a victory?
>
> It accomplishes the mission in that everyone is on the same grounds.
> Same freedom for everyone.  If the vendor tries to keep a privilege
> over the software to itself, denying it to its customers, it's failing
> to comply with the spirit of the license.  It's really this simple.
> Is this so hard to understand?

-ELOGIC

They are not keeping a priviledge over the *SOFTWARE* at all. They are keeping 
a priviledge over the *HARDWARE*. But, of course, you've already proven to 
everyone here that you are unwilling and/or unable to understand that.

> The goal is not to push vendors away from GPLed software.  If they
> can't permit modification of the software, that's fine, they can still
> accomplish this.

replacement != modification

If you can't understand that simple fact, then its pointless to continue this 
discussion.

DRH

> What they can't do is deny it to customers while they retain it to
> themselves.  This is unfair, this is wrong, and this disrespects
> users' freedoms.  Therefore, the GPL should not permit it.



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.