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

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> > connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
> > how TiVO devices actually connect) but the network being connected to has
> > a single owner who can set such terms.
> >
> > I'll repeat, in full, my earlier examples of this:
> > The first:
> > I buy a cable modem. Until the second I connect the cable-line to it so I
> > can get a connection to the internet I can configure it in whatever
> > manner I please. The second the line is connected, even though I *OWN*
> > the hardware, I lose all control over its configuration.
> >
> > The second:
> > I buy a DSL modem. Until I want to actually connect to the internet it
> > can have whatever settings I want it to have. The second I want to
> > connect to the internet it has to be configured the way that the ISP
> > wants.
>
> Jung va gur jbeyq znxrf lbh guvax gurer vf n hfrshy nanybtl
> orgjrra pbzzhavpngvba fgnaqneqf naq pbclevtug yvprafrf?
>
> One moment, let me retune.
>
> 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?

> Neither law nor common sense give much common ground to the two,
> except in the general sense of two parties interacting.  One is a set
> of rules so the two can interact through some information channel.
> The other is a set of rules so that one can exploit a creative work
> developed by the other.
>
> I suppose that you think it is acceptable for someone to offer access
> to binary and source versions of GPLed software (with or without
> modifications from commonly available versions) -- but only on the
> condition that people never download the source versions?  That
> certainly corresponds to the idea that Tivo can keep proprietary
> extensions to the kernel if Tivo's customers want to connect to Tivo's
> network services.

Nope. Because that isn't a right they have that is disconnected from copyright 
law. Or did you not read the entire post and just decide to try and make me 
look stupid?

> Your reliance on counterfactual arguments severely undermines your
> position -- whether the fiction is how Tivo devices connect (a quick
> search on Google indicates that Tivo recommends a broadband Ethernet
> connection rather than a phone line) or that we should analyze based
> on DRM signatures distributed separately from the kernel (when they
> are not).  We are arguing about the universe we inhabit, not some
> alternative where the GPL might actually be the Groundhog Petting
> License.

At no point have I claimed to know how TiVO was accomplishing the "connection 
to the service" or how they were handling the signing of the kernel. If the 
final binary is altered by the signing process then, IMHO, the signed kernel 
and everything involved in creating it constitutes a "derived work".

My argument is that, as much as people want it to be different, in mandating 
that people give up rights that are (potentially) disconnected from the 
copyright - in order to "Defend the Four Freedoms" and keep "all users of the 
licensed work equal in their freedoms" - the GPLv3 is flawed and potentially 
unenforceable. 

DRH

> Michael Poole



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