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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-14T19:14:05Z

On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
>> hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
>> Software in it.

> No you're not...you're talking about being able to hack the software
> *and load it back onto the original hardware*.

Yes. You wouldn't impose restrictions on modifying the software like
that, now would you? Even though the GPL says you can't impose
further restrictions on modification and distribution.

>> It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use
>> the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that
>> they're entitled to have.

> The software license controls the software. If the hardware has
> restrictions on it that limit what software it will run, then that is
> unrelated to the software license.

As in, the license controls the software. If a patent creates
restrictions that limit what you can do with the software, then that
is unrelated to the software license.

As in, the license controls the software. If a discriminatory
contract limits what you can do with the software, then that is
unrelated to the software license.

As in, the license controls the software. If I send you the source
code, but it happens to be protected by a key that only the hardware
can decode, and it won't decode for you, then that is unrelated to the
software license.

Is that so, really?

> There is nothing stopping you from taking the code for the tivo,
> modifying it, distributing it, or even running it on other hardware.

True. But TiVO is still imposing further restrictions on how I can
modify the software stored in their device, while reserving that
ability to itself. This is wrong. This is not "in kind". This is
not "tit-for-tat". Tit-for-tat is: if they can, then I can too, and
if I can't, then they can't either.

> Suppose I had some machine that will only run microsoft-signed
> binaries. Would it be at all related to any software license that this
> machine won't let me run linux?

That would be an unfortunate machine to have, but if Linux or some
other GPLed software was not shipped in it, then I don't see how this
is relevant to this discussion. It's not about the hardware, it's
about the software in it, and about passing on the freedoms related
with it.

--
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}