From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964787AbWA1Pit (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:38:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751444AbWA1Pis (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:38:48 -0500 Received: from mail.enyo.de ([212.9.189.167]:11392 "EHLO mail.enyo.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751420AbWA1Pis (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:38:48 -0500 From: Florian Weimer To: Simon Oosthoek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders References: <43D114A8.4030900@wolfmountaingroup.com> <20060120111103.2ee5b531@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <43D13B2A.6020504@cs.ubishops.ca> <43D7C780.6080000@perkel.com> <43D7B20D.7040203@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7B5C4.5040601@wolfmountaingroup.com> <43D7D05D.7030101@perkel.com> <43D9F9F9.5060501@ti-wmc.nl> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:38:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <43D9F9F9.5060501@ti-wmc.nl> (Simon Oosthoek's message of "Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:46:17 +0100") Message-ID: <87irs4qs58.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Simon Oosthoek: > GPLv3-draft1: >> (...) >> Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or >> authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source >> code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or >> principal context of use, such that its functioning in all >> circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by >> your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary >> to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code >> need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies >> the user already has it. >> (...) > > I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make > it difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that. I view it slightly different. Suppose you produce a device which can only boot images signed by a certain public key. In this case, you can give your users source code, but they can't change it and run it on the device because the signature does not match. This is a real threat to software freedom. Such technology already exists, see for an example: The reasons for that are entirely obscure (because anyone can obtain a certificate, there is no kind of quality control) and likely only related to export regulations. But a similar approach could be used elsewhere, to exercise more control over which code can run on a certain platform.