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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-20T00:48:51Z

On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> Company X has requirement for restriction Y
> => License on product Z disallows restriction Y
> => Product Z loses Company X and the exposure use in their product gives
> => License on product Z is bad for the product

> Understandable now?

Well, considering that I've made this claim myself as part of my
complete argument in a number of times I've presented it, yes, this is
understandable and correct. This is indeed one of the cases.

That said, very few companies have a scrict *requirement* for keeping
the ability to modify the software on the customer's computer while
denying this ability to the customer.

So this case you're discussing is the least common case. It could
nearly be dismissed, rather than being the dominating topic in the
discussion, as it's been so far.

> What I was stating is that are legal (and other reasons) why a
> company might have to lock down their software in a process similar
> to "Tivoization".

Ok. Most of these can be addressed (with inconvenience) with ROM.
Others are business reasons, and for these, the increased cost and
inconvenience of the alternatives may shift them to an unlock
situation.

>> Therefore, this claim is false.

> Only when you define a term as specifically as you have done
> for "Tivoization".

It's not my definition. This was from Wikipedia.

> I should, perhaps, have used a different term - it would
> then have been patently true.

Depends on what the different term was.

--
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}