Greg KH wrote: >> > So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change >> > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections. >> > >> I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes, >> including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at >> the moment, we effectively have no choice. > > That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought > up about the whole "tivo" issue and the Linux kernel. > > Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the > DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel). > OK, but what about a corporation selling Gentoo-based tivo boxes? Updates are carried out as, say, binary images, and they continue to use all the flexibility of Gentoo (built by its users, and devs who are also users) while curtailing Gentoo users' rights.
I understand the argument that eg GCC is a paintbox, and the FSF don't want copyright over your paintings, but do want improvements to the toolset to be shared by all. I /had/ thought "3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law" meant that GCC could not be used to build such a system: "No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws" Hmm got that wrong I guess, my bad. (I guess you can tell I ain't a lawyer ;-)) I still don't like it :-) I also wonder how the above applies to BASH, which is usually such a critical element of a GNU/Linux system.. I guess that's what other shells, under less protective licenses, will be used for tho. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html for users who don't have the url.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
