From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263914AbTDXTjp (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:39:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263844AbTDXTjp (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:39:45 -0400 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net ([66.54.152.27]:6282 "HELO jive.SoftHome.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263914AbTDXTjn (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:39:43 -0400 From: Balram Adlakha To: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 01:20:40 +0530 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <3EA804A8.8070608@techsource.com> <20030424192322.GA30082@mail.jlokier.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20030424192322.GA30082@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200304250120.40238.b_adlakha@softhome.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 25 Apr 2003 12:53 am, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > >>> I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! > > >> > > >>thanks for such a clear statement. > > > > > >Anybody would think Linux was written solely by Linus, the way His > > >words are taken as summarising the intent of all its authors... > > Firstly, let's be clear I do actually agree with Linus. The GPL is > not strong enough to prevent DRM usage, in my opinion. > > (Aside: It's not a very convinced opinion, though, nor would I be > unhappy if a future license were able to prevent free software being > the basis for devices which it is _illegal_ to reprogram, except under > very strict conditions. > > I consider software barriers fair game, whereas threat of > imprisonment is a very serious matter. Then again, think about > tamper-proof cameras for evidence gathering against abuse by > authorities - that's a great use of a tamper-proof device, if you can > trust it). > > In response to the person who thanked Linus, fair enough. It was a > good thing to do. > > However, Linus' statements are sometimes interpreted as allowing or > disallowing various things as he interprets the GPL - and it is dodgy > ground for a business to build much on that, because Linus' opinion on > the license is just that: his opinion. If he were the sole author, or > represented all the authors, his opinion would, I believe, hold more > legal weight than it does. But he isn't. > > I just wanted to point that out, in case the person who thanked him > for the clear statement took the statement as meaning it was a good > idea to build a business which depends on that. > > Timothy Miller wrote: > > You are free to make a fork of the Linux tree for which DRM is NOT ok. > > > > Likewise, Linus is free to allow or disallow whatever he feels like in > > HIS tree. > > Secondly, this is not logically valid. It doesn't work like that. > > If Linus' interpretation of the GPL is a fair assessment, then I am > _not_ free to fork the Linux tree and make DRM not ok for the fork. > > I'd be free to fork the tree and attach a differing _opinion_ to the > license, but I cannot add further licensing clauses. The GPL forbids > this. > > For the same reason, Linus is _not_ free to allow or disallow whatever > he feels like in his tree, either. > > In principle. In pracice I suspect whatever Linus says goes simply > because he's the de facto leader and nobody with any clout disagrees > strongly enough to contest him. If there were ever a big fork over > some major ethical issue, that would change. > > Thirdly, keep in mind that all the above is just my opinion. I could > be mistaken, or irrelevant :) > > h.a.n.d., > -- Jamie The thing is that Linus' tree is the "main" tree, and It should remain that way so that linux is "one". Linus' _HAS_ the right to do anything he wants with his tree, and all the distributors will take _his_ tree and the thing we all dread might happen ("you have to have version 12 of red hat linux _signed_ kernel to run this thing"). You _ARE_ allowed to have your _OWN_ tree without the stuff that you think is not right, but that won't help the situation (because that thing you want to run demands a signed kernel) I think we have a problem here... -- Key fingerprint = A0F8 9D33 45D0 9B0C 7135 4E88 5E08 2EFF A938 9713