From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756051AbXFSVxQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:53:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751492AbXFSVxE (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:53:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59529 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbXFSVxB (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:53:01 -0400 To: "David Schwartz" Cc: "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:52:51 -0300 In-Reply-To: (David Schwartz's message of "Tue\, 19 Jun 2007 13\:33\:49 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) 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 Jun 19, 2007, "David Schwartz" wrote: >> Right. All GPL can say is that you cannot impose further restrictions >> on how the user adapts the software, and since the user runs the >> software on that computer, that means you must not restrict the user's >> ability to upgrade or otherwise replace that software there, when you >> gave the user the software along with the computer. > You keep smuggling in the same assumption without ever defending it. There > is a user. There is a person who gets to decide what software runs on a > particular piece of hardware. You keep assuming they must be the same > person. No, I'm just saying that whoever gets to decide cannot restrict the user's freedoms as to the software the user received. Consider this: I get GPLed software. I make improvements to it. I give it to you, but I leave out the sources of my changes. You ask me for sources, because without them you can't enjoy the freedom to adapt the software. I say "No, they're mine. I have the right to keep them and release them however I like. Copyright law says so.! You talk to the copyright holder, and he revokes my license and gets a court order such that I can't distribute the software any more. You see? It's not because I had a right that I can use it to impose restrictions on your freedoms, after I distribute the software to you. Right to control what software runs on the hardware is no different. For any hardware on which I can run the software, I'm a user there, and I'm entitled to the rights granted by the license. It's really this simple. Don't complicate the issue by trying to make hardware special. It's just an illusion to try to convince yourself that you can deprive users of freedoms provided by the GPL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}