From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751399AbWA1Ejy (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:39:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751401AbWA1Ejy (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:39:54 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:2238 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751399AbWA1Ejx (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:39:53 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:39:25 -0500 (EST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Simon Oosthoek cc: "linux-os \\(Dick Johnson\\)" , Kyle Moffett , Marc Perkel , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Patrick McLean , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders In-Reply-To: <43D9F9F9.5060501@ti-wmc.nl> Message-ID: 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> 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 On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote: > > I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I > assume you're referring to this part: > > [ snipped ] Yes. > 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. IF that is the legal interpretation, then yes, I'd agree with you. And no, I'm not a lawyer. However, the way I read it, it's not about just not being able to hide the object code - it's fundamentally about being able to replace and run the object code. I may indeed be reading it wrong, but I don't think I am. It explicitly says "install and/or execute". So I think it says that if I have a private signing key that "enables" the kernel on some hardware of mine, GPLv3 requires that private key to be made available for that hardware. Note how that is tied to the _hardware_ (or platform - usualyl the checking would be done by firmware, of course), not the actual source code of the program. And that's really what I don't like. I believe that a software license should cover the software it licenses, not how it is used or abused - even if you happen to disagree with certain types of abuse. I believe that hardware that limits what their users can do will die just becuase being user-unfriendly is not a way to do successful business. Yes, I'm a damned blue-eyed optimist, but I'd rather be blue-eyed than consider all uses of security technology to necessarily always be bad. Linus