From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964920AbWA3Tnm (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:43:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964922AbWA3Tnm (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:43:42 -0500 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.202]:19390 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964920AbWA3Tnl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:43:41 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Dl3sw8cxjku+mlIdzwl0GpH6GTcuxJugcyN2/UGEU+AHknJj7WPcEndBs/Rc8u1+Vvok8Yl8EZgay0s2jCEG3EjfhRiz9H6JzCCDC9HXAMPtno8Qj9awbgKIN9VKZxIYfE0DeuML1hjElXC+TPJeXcwpbIpgu1cxVvDs3aXffEQ= Message-ID: <5d6222a80601301143q3b527effq526482837e04ee5a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:43:39 -0200 From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa To: karim@opersys.com Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders Cc: Thomas Horsten , linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <43DE57C4.5010707@opersys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <43DE57C4.5010707@opersys.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/30/06, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > Thomas Horsten wrote: > > That would be a dubious circumvention. Remember that the GPLv3 is still a > > draft - the wording can (and should probably) be improved to make it clear > > that the system as a whole must behave identically if a modified version > > of the GPL'ed software is used. > > As a software license, GPLv3 can dictate the usage rules for software > distributed under it, but it can't dictate the usage terms of hardware > and software independently developed (ex.: DRM'ed hardware and > proprietary user-space applications). No wording could erase that. > And what is suggest is not "circumvention", it's just not something > GPLv3 could cover. I may be missing the point here, (In case you're more than welcome to correct me), but ... Why? Can't a software license restrict the usage of the software? In which ways do you think the sentence "Don't use in DRM'ed hardware" differs from sentences like "Not allowed in country X", "Don't use for commercial purposes", and other alikes ? I think that saying in which hardware your software can or cannot run is a pretty valid license term (without messing with the question about it being the right thing to do here). Besides that, I pretty much agree with the rest of your mail. -- Free Software : Technology for a better world ============================= Glauber de Oliveira Costa jabber: glommer@jabber.org =============================