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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-17T19:51:41Z

On Sunday 17 June 2007 15:32:34 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
> >> between communication standards and copyright licenses?
> >
> > I don't. I was *REPEATING* an example of how TiVO has a *RIGHT* to
> > change the kernel or any other facet of the device connecting to
> > their network. That right *ISN'T* tied to copyright - as you have
> > stated. Since it isn't, why is the FSF trying to mandate that it is
> > with the tivoization clauses in GPLv3?
>
> Since you're talking about rights, and that's a legal term, and we've
> (hopefully) already established that intent of license author, intent
> of copyright holder and letter of the license are different concepts,
> and only the last of the 3 has to do with legal terms, I'll excuse
> myself from the plane of spirits ;-) and get down to legal terms to
> shoot down your argument.
>
>
> Let's see... US law states that (paraphrasing), if you grant a
> copyright license that says the person can do such and such, you can't
> later turn to that person and say "oh, BTW, I have this patent, and it
> means you couldn't do such and such in the first place, unless you pay
> me a gazillion bucks"
>
>
>
> Patents have nothing to do with copyrights. Still, a copyright
> license can (and does) limit the ways in which you can use the power
> that patent law gives you.
>
> You could try to argue that "you have a right to the patent, and to
> use it however you like". But the moment you accept a license such as
> v1, v2, or any later version to be published by the FSF, you give up
> the power to use that patent to stop users from fully enjoying the
> freedoms that the license granted them and said you couldn't further
> restrict.
>

Agreed.

> s/patent/anti-circumvention measure/
>
> s/patent/hardware/

Under GPLv2 the rights granted are to "copy, distribute and modify". Under v3
they are, as near as I can tell, your "beloved" 'Four Freedoms'. See the
difference? GPLv2 can be boiled down to mandating the "open exchange of
software", GPLv3 does the same, but also attempts to force the philosophy of
one group on everyone else.

>
> See?
>
>
> Now, why would we be revising the license, if it's all already there?
>
> First of all, to make this all clear.

First of all, because we want everyone to believe exactly the same things we
believe.

> Second of all, because law does not operate this way. While there is
> case law that establishes that copyright law supersedes patent law in
> this sense (or so I'm told, I don't have the references and IANAL),
> it's not clear that the same would hold for the DMCA, or technical
> measures, or even discriminatory agreements.
>
> So, in order to provide users with a better defense against these
> dangers for the freedoms, the newer revision clarifies them, such that
> whoever attempts to deny users' freedoms has a weaker defense for such
> attempts, in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

I agree with attempting to protect people from the DMCA. The simple fact is
that I feel that the GPLv3 would be better if all the "philosophy" crap was
removed from it and the language cleaned up and simplified. In fact, add
GPLv3dd4's section 3 was added to the GPLv2 it'd do just that.

DRH

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