Re: thread problem with libc for Linux
On Apr 13, 2001, Jerry Hong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x401ca0d6 in chunk_free (ar_ptr=0x4025ed60,
p=0x80a1ba8) at malloc.c:3097
This is usually a symptom of memory corruption in your own program.
It's damaging libc's internal data structures. I.e., this probably
has nothing to do with GCC or the kernel.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 15, 2007, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 2/15/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The /whole point/ of the GPL is to funnel contributions back. Bzzzt. The whole point of the GPL is to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. No, that's the FSF marketing fluff you've been taught to recite. The same FSF that wrote the GPL, no less ;-) In the context of the Linux kernel, I'm referring to the original reason why Linus chose the GPL for the Linux kernel. If he chose it for this reason, he chose the wrong license. The GPL does not funnel contributions back. It doesn't even require anyone to make contributions: you're free to keep your improvements only to yourself. And even if you distribute them, you can choose whom to distribute it to, and that might very well leave the 'back' out. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 15, 2007, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/14/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding... Linux is not royalty free. Just the royalty is not in the form of cash, but in the form of having to give your improvements back to the open source world. It's not giving back, it's giving forward. Improvements don't have to go back, but whoever receives them must receive them under the same license. Sure. But this is not legally binding. Indeed, you don't have to give it back or give it forward. It's just that, if you don't comply with the license, you don't have permission to distribute the software at all. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 15, 2007, Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: v j wrote: You don't get it do you. Our source code is meaningless to the Open Source community at large. You don't have to offer it to the community at large. You only have to pass it on to your customers, under the terms of the GPL. Collaborating with the competition (coopetition) on a common technology platform reduces costs for anyone who chooses to get involved, giving them a collective competitive edge against anyone who doesn't. http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/papers/free-software/BMind.pdf -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 16, 2007, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Feb 15, 2007, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 2/15/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The /whole point/ of the GPL is to funnel contributions back. Bzzzt. The whole point of the GPL is to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. No, that's the FSF marketing fluff you've been taught to recite. The same FSF that wrote the GPL, no less ;-) I'm referring to the original reason why Linus chose the GPL If he chose it for this reason, he chose the wrong license. Strange, then, how its been so successful in funelling back contributions. There's nothing strange about it. Promoting (as opposed to mandating) contributions is a great possible, even probable consequence of the GPL, but it is far from being the whole point of the GPL. If Linus' whole point had been to funnel back contributions, assuming he fully understood the GPL back when he chose it, he'd probably have chosen a different license that *required* contributions to be funneled back. And then Linux would have remained non-Free Software. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 17, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linking with kernel exported symbols in a kernel module is by many people considered creating a work derived from the kernel. That's simply unreasonable. It is the most clear settled law that only a creative process can create a work for copyright purposes. Linking is an automated process, not a creative process. It cannot create a work at all, much less a derivative work. Per this principle, it would seem that only source code and hand-crafted object code would be governed by copyright, since compilation is also an automated process. FWIW, http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1 touches a very similar issue, also covered in the upcoming release of the video of the FSFLA session in the 5th GPLv3 conference. If you have two works, A and B, and neither is a derivative work of the other, linking them together cannot change the status of A or B. IANAL, but I understand this is correct. However, the output is probably a derivative work of both. Also, it's the fact that A needs to be linked with B, or vice-versa, that's a clue that A is likely to be a derived work from B, or vice-versa, even before they're linked together. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 17, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not so. See any of the numerous cases that explain that you cannot own a function using copyright. They are saying that because V J did X, he *MUST* be taking their code because there is no other practical way to *do* X. This is precisely what copyright *DOES* *NOT* *LET* *YOU* *DO*. So, since there's no other way to do Yesterday, exactly as performed by the Beatles in the 1965 album Help!, I'm free to copy it, perform it, create derived versions thereof and perform them, without paying royalties to the current copyright holders? The fact that they are claiming rights that are impossible with copyright and inconsistent with its logic. Copyright covers the one way you chose to do something out of the many possible ways to do it. To argue you must have taken my code because you were able to *DO* X is arguing you own every practical way to do X. This is what software patents do, but this is beyond the scope of copyright. You're on to something, but I think you're taking it too far. One could always create a clean-room implementation of kernel headers and use them to build a module that presumably wouldn't be a derived work, as long as the binary is indeed created using these clean-room headers. But who does that, considering how quickly kernel headers change, and that if you build the object code using the actual kernel headers, then the binary is likely to be a derived work of the kernel, even if the sources still aren't? #include std/IANAL.h -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 17, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interestingly, if you are right, then what online translation services like babelfish [...] but much harder to argue that it gives them the right to create a derivative work. (Of course, you could argue fair use.) One could try to argue it's an accessibility issue, if local fair use has provisions for it. Even for manual translations. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On Feb 17, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 17 February 2007 03:42, David Schwartz wrote: Again, see Lexmark v. Static Controls. If make a toner cartridge that works with a particular Lexmark printer is a functional idea, why is make a graphics driver that works with a particular Linux kernel not? What is the difference you think matters? That you cannot build such modules without integrating parts of actual Linux kernel code (via #includes etc), whereas you can build compatible toner cartridges without using any original component. Static Controls actually put a copy of Lexmark's 'Toner Loading Program' on each compatible cartridge they made. The printer actually copies the TLP off the cartridge. In other words, to make a compatible catridge, you do have to use an original component. (Or at least, it's much more difficult not to.) Besides, you *can* build a module for Linux without using any kernel code. It just takes a lot of work to implement all you'd otherwise need from the kernel in a clean-room fashion. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto
On Feb 8, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: I think you are dreaming. You've gone from wanting enough information to supposedly debug your source tree to being explicit about wanting to recreate the entire BK history in a different system. The answer is no, that's a clear violation of the license. So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into granting you power over not only the BK history, in such a way that anyone willing to extract all the information available from the BK repository and share it with others is forbidden from doing so by the license? I'm quite unhappy you keep asking for this, it forces me into the position of being the bad guy. You need to understand that we can only take on so much risk and giving you BK for free was a huge amount of risk. I'd much rather you didn't ``give it at all, then people wouldn't be locked into it, and the community might have come up with something as efficient earlier with the extra push. Now we're faced with choices such as keeping on with a presumably technically-good but non-Free software, or switching to a Free and hopefully as-good software and losing history. Clever trick, indeed! Giving you BK, and the right to use it to create a different system, and/or the right to use the BK metadata to create a different system is way too much risk. Is it even legal to attempt to stop someone from sharing information that is not owned by you? Or did you get to own all of the metadata in the repository? I don't come here every month and ask for the GPL to be removed from some driver, that's essentially what you are doing I don't think so. What he's doing is more along the lines of `hey, this allegedly-GPLed driver contains a piece of binary firmware whose source code is not there, could we either replace it with actual GPLed code or remove the driver? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto
On Feb 9, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into granting you power over not only the BK history It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put some files into a file system does the file system creator owe you the knowledge of how those files are maintained in the file system? No, the `how' is not the missing bit. The missing bit is `what'. Taking your file system analogy, consider this: - you only have a filesystem that supports 8.3 file names, all-caps. - I offer you a new filesystem layer that can supports file names with arbitrary lengths, lower-case letters, blanks, etc. This is actually implemented using an 8.3 filesystem structure, adding to it some special filename mapping files that a filesystem upper layer will interpret to present users with arbitrary filenames. The actual 8.3 filenames used under the hood are chosen with a well-defined algorithm, that I even offer as part of the filesystem documentation. - the catch: copy operations from this filesystem to any other are not allowed to carry over the filename map that my filesystem happens to maintain from 8.3, so the result of the copy to any other filesystem will have 8.3 names, even in a copy to a filesystem that does support arbitrary file names. When you claim the Linux community got a very good tool from you, and that those who use your tool are far better off, and those who don't are worse off, you fail to realize that there is one thing that all of us lost in the process: a compelling reason to help develop a Free VCS tool that could play the role that BK currently does. Sure, if Linus hadn't adopted BK, nobody would have any of the metadata that Roman is requesting. However, I suspect many would be working towards creating a tool that would provide everyone with such a tool. Also, by offering them a tool that will let them get access to the metadata, but not export it in a form that other tools that supported changesets and multi-branch patch tracking, you set the people who chose to adopt BK up for a difficult situation for as soon as a Free Software tool would be able to offer a similar amount of convenience as BK does: should they ever decide to switch, they'd have to give up all of the metadata that was part of the reason for the switch in the first place, and start over from scratch in the new VCS. So they might be further compelled to stick with this proprietary piece of software, just because the fact that a Free Software equivalent exists may not be enough for them to offset the penalty of giving up the metadata. This was the clever trick I alluded to. Well done! Too bad for us. Since when is that part of the deal? Does that mean that I can insist you provide me with a detailed specification, without an attached GPL, of how GCC works so I can clone the technology into my commercial compiler? Why, sure, and you do get that. The source code can serve as a pretty good specification and, as long as you don't copy it directly, you're free to use it in your proprietary compiler, commercial or not. It's the same with any software package. I know Red Hat uses Oracle, why aren't you telling Oracle to disclose how Oracle works inside? Because that's not the point. Should Oracle keep part of the data stored in the database for itself, I would. But they don't. It's our data in there. What BK is doing to us is equivalent to using a database with a predetermined set of queries, that operate on the current state of the database, plus an additional operation to dump all of the transactions (not the state, the transactions) that have ever been performed on this database, in a randomized order. The transactions are all in diff format, so one could theoretically serialize them and figure out the complete state of the database at a certain point, but not necessarily intermediate states, which, in the presence of concurrent transactions without an intervening serialization event, may not even exist. And then one could import the state into another database and perform queries. So, you see, having the list of patches/transactions/changesets without information of what goes atop of what doesn't stop people from figuring out the current state of the database, but it sure requires them to do a lot of work to get to it, except for the predetermined queries. What's going on here is no different than Red Hat deciding they don't want to pay for Oracle so they are reverse engineering Oracle and transferring the technology into MySQL. Guess what: we would be able to take all of our data and move it into a different database. We're the only vendor I've ever heard of who provides a mirror of the data in a competing free product. It's not a complete mirror. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The mirror intentionally excludes
Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto
, and insist on developing such software yourself, but only if someone else pays for it? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto
On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way? I don't see what you've done as helping the open source community. Sorry. I should have said the Free Software community. The Open Source community doesn't generally care about the moral issues related with freedom and avoiding the use of proprietary software. Still, this sentence, taken out of the context where it was, sounded much stronger than I meant. I don't know whether you quoted it out of context on purpose, to make it (and myself) an easier target for criticism, or just because you didn't feel like quoting the explanation for it below, in which I used the correct term to refer to the Free Software community. So in your mind, aiding the open source community is done only through creating more open source. Directly. No, there are several other ways to help both the Free Software and the Open Source community. But getting them to use proprietary software isn't a way to help promote Free Software. It does undermine the message of software freedom. The fact that open source projects which use BK are more productive than if they were not using BK is irrelevant and of no value, correct? IMNSHO, the most justifiable use of proprietary software is in developing a free alternative, like in the beginning of the GNU project, when no completely-free operating system existed. Using proprietary software just because you can, without making efforts to switch to Free Software as soon as possible, is a sure way to help the proprietary software side win the battle against free software. Entrapping yourself into a piece of proprietary software that will not only forbid you from working on free alternatives, but also prevent you from sharing the information you stored in it yourself is, IMHO, a mistake. The fact that they are creating more open source more quickly because of their use of BK is irrelevant and of no value, correct? It surely does have some value. I don't think such value outweights the lock-in. In that case, get the free BK users to agree with you and we'll pull the plug on free BK. Heh. Yeah, right. Don't count on everybody being as religious as I am on these matters. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto
On Feb 11, 2005, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not Larry choosing not to have you do the work, you are self selecting not to do it because you won't sign the contracts. No. We don't want access to the BK software. We want access to the data that is stored in the repository, that's all. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto
On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: You are also right that figuring out the merges is a pain. So what? We never said that we'd figure out how to do all this well and then teach you how to do it well. We're not asking for you to teach us how to do it. We're just asking you to let us know the information that is (presumably) stored in the repository. Now if you tell me the information isn't stored there at all, you just throw it away at check in time and then figures it all out again on the fly upon request, fine, I'll believe you. I just wouldn't have thought that's the way it works. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
On Feb 14, 2005, Gerold Jury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if they really need the more powerful features. Or we could donate some on a case by case basis. If the hackers who are using BK can reach agreement that it would be better if the BK they had didn't move forward unless they got commercial seats then we could start moving towards a license on the free product that was less restrictive. What that would mean is that the BK you have I want to pay the fee for Linus and Alan. I'd like to pay the fee to have Linus' license to use BK revoked. But I probably can't afford it, oh well :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
On Feb 15, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: The people we spoke with were far more interested in the ability to move people onto BK when they needed to. They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
On Feb 15, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: For those who don't know, bk changes -v is output in time sorted order of changesets with the changeset comments then each file's comments like the output below. as Roman/Pavel/et al have pointed out sometimes the commits in the CVS tree are too coarse if the cset you want is a merge of 20 changesets on a branch. How would the `bk changes -v ' output look like for such a merge of 20 changesets on a branch? Would it list the 20 merged changesets? Also, would the changeset ids ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) match the revision IDs in the CVS tree? If so, it looks like this would provide the very bit of information that I feel to be missing from the publicly-available Linux repository. But for people trying to easily track the head the tarball server might be just the ticket. Any chance of having such tarballs offered from an rsync server, compressed with gzip --rsyncable? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
On Feb 16, 2005, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to pay the fee for Linus and Alan. I'd like to pay the fee to have Linus' license to use BK revoked. But I probably can't afford it, oh well :-) Easy, start working for OSDL, then start hacking arch or whatever. Puff, you are his coworker, you are competing with Larry, Linus license goes away. Hey, cool! The nice thing is that I probably don't even have to start hacking anything, I already (pretend to) maintain GNU CVS Utilities. Can I volunteer to maintain is for OSDL, at no charge? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Touchpad problems with 2.6.11-rc2
On Feb 2, 2005, Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:07:27 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With a Synaptics I suppose? You wouldn't like it with an ALPS. No, it's a Dualpoint, and so ALPS. Err... That doesn't follow. My Dell Inspiron 8000 has a Synaptics touchpad as part of the Dualpoint pointing devices. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Touchpad problems with 2.6.11-rc2
On Feb 3, 2005, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:14AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Feb 2, 2005, Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:07:27 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With a Synaptics I suppose? You wouldn't like it with an ALPS. No, it's a Dualpoint, and so ALPS. Err... That doesn't follow. My Dell Inspiron 8000 has a Synaptics touchpad as part of the Dualpoint pointing devices. Dualpoint (tm) is a trademark of ALPS, Interesting... Dell DualPoint is the way the pointing devices are described in that notebook's documentation, and I remember all the way from back when I purchased the notebook: I really wanted the two pointing devices. If you search the web for Dell Inspiron 8000 DualPoint, you'll get a number of hits referring to `Dell's DualPoint technology'. I don't see them referred to as DualPoint(TM), but I vaguely remember having seen something like that in Dell's web site back then. Maybe ALPS bought the trademark from Dell, or Dell hadn't actually registered the trademark, or they somehow managed to get the trademarks registered with a case difference (DualPoint vs Dualpoint)? so in your case you have both a touchpoint and a touchpad, but it's not called a Dualpoint in this case, because it's two separate devices. Indeed, it's called Dell DualPoint. Sorry about the confusion. Not really my fault, I think :-) :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably have been shown to be bogus. Or that people would feel uncomfortable about the gray area and avoid using the GPLed code in cases in which this would be perfectly legal and advantageous to Free Software. Sure enough, when people create and distribute proprietary code by taking advantage of Free Software, that's something to be avoided, but since there are other Free Software licenses that are not compatible with the GNU GPL, it made sense to enable software licensed under them to be combined with these few libraries. Letting concerns about copyright infringement, be such acts permissible by law or not, scare Free Software developers away from Free Software was not good for Free Software. Do you REALLY believe that a binary becomes a derived work of any random library that it gets linked against? If that's not fair use of a library that implements a standard library definition, I don't know what is. There are many factors involved and you're oversimplifying the issue. Some claim that, in the case of static linking, since there part of the library copied to the binary, it is definitely a case of derived work. Some then take this notion that linking creates derived works and further extend the claim that using dynamic linking is just a trick to avoid making the binary a derived work, and thus it shouldn't be taken into account, even if there still is *some* information from the dynamic library that affects the linked binary. Others then introduce exceptions such as the existence of another implementation of the library that is binary- and license-compatible, and that thus might make the license of the library actually used to create the binary irrelevant. Some disregard the fact that header files sometimes aren't just interface definitions, but they also contain functional code, in the form of preprocessor macros and inline functions, that, if used, do make it to the binary. All of these arguments have their strengths and weaknesses. As you and others point out, and it matches my personal knowledge, none of them has been tried in court, and the outcome of a court dispute will often depend on specifics anyway. So calling these arguments idiocy is as presumptuous as FSF's alleged behavior. While at that, I feel you allegation is groundless, and I hope this message makes it clear why, so I wish you'd take it back. The gray area between what is clearly permitted by a license and the murky lines that determine what constitutes a derived work, and what is fair use even if it's a derived work, is not for any of us to decide. The best we can do is to offer interpretations on intent of license authors and software authors, and of laws. Even though we're not lawyers or judges, such interpretations may be taken into account in court disputes. When the FSF says a license does not permit such and such behavior, you apparently interpret that as a statement that the FSF thinks this behavior wouldn't be permissible by fair use either. This is an incorrect interpretation. As we've seen above, there *is* a gray area beyond what is permitted by the license. But the FSF must not give anyone the impression that the *license* permits actions that would make it less effective in fulfilling its intent, this would just weaken the license. Similarly, when you make an unqualified statement that some action is permitted, because you mean it's permitted by fair use even if not by the license, this might be mis-interpreted as something explicitly permitted by the license. So this weakens the license, one of our most valuable tools to make the world a better place. Is this what you intend to do? I hope not. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 17, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example, glibc could easily have just come out and said the thing that is obvious to any sane person: using this library as just a standard library does not make your program a derived work. There really wassn't much need for the LGPL, I think. So I guess you approve of the reformulation of LGPL as an additional permission on top of GPL, as in its draft at gplv3.fsf.org, right? Some claim that, in the case of static linking, since there part of the library copied to the binary, it is definitely a case of derived work. No, the sane way to think about it is that linking just creates an aggregate work. That's your take on it. It does make sense, but claiming it's *the* sane way to think about it is making the mistake you accused the FSF of making. Why do people think that using ln is _any_ different from using mkisofs. Maybe because mkisofs will create a functional filesystem image out of whatever you could possibly throw at it, while ld will perform a number of cross-checks between the inputs it is given which indicates a much closer relationship between the inputs? You said so yourself, so I guess we agree. Does mkisofs create a derived work, or an aggregate? I'd say both. I understand it's a derived work, but one that happens to be a mere aggregate of works that might or might not be based on a GPLed program included in the aggregate. Now, does this mean that a court would be pretty much forced to admit the aggregate as a derived work, and thus that the copyright holder (or the license author) gets a say on what 'mere aggregate' means in the license chosen by the copyright holder? ld creates works that perhaps can be construed as not being mere aggregates or even derived works, since ld doesn't always copy the contents of its inputs to the output. But it does extract some information that makes to the output, and there is a closer relationship between the works than in the mere aggregation case of mkisofs, so there is still room for claiming that the output is a derived work, and that it's not a mere aggregate. In fact, it can't possibly be exempt by this paragraph in clause 2 of the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. because we're not talking about mere aggregation of the work (or a work based on it) with another work not based on the program, but rather about whether the linker output is based on the program or not. A court gets to decide whether it is a derived work, but since in the dynamic linking case you're not aggregating (because you're not copying the entire library) the program with other works not based on the program, then this exception doesn't apply, methinks. This particular thing is a non-issue wrt the GPLv2, since you always have the right to do distribution of aggregates, but it does come up in some OTHER licenses. Make it *mere* aggregates. That *might* turn out to be a relevant distinction. E.g., if there's functional dependence of one of the elements of the aggregate on another, is the aggregate work still the result of mere aggregation? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license- compatible, are certainly not derivative works. Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might not be, just like a big chunk of other non-GPL drivers for Linux. But what about the glue code? Can that be defended as not a derived work, such that it doesn't have to be GPL? If not, can the whole containing both the non-derivative work and the source code providing the glue without which the whole wouldn't fulfill its intended purpose be regarded as a mere aggregate, and thus not be subject to the requirement that the whole be released under the GPL? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, I think they are still pushing the you don't have any rights unless we give you additional rights explicitly angle a bit too hard. Maybe it's just a matter of perception. I don't see it that way from the inside. How about http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-2id=2238 Would it help address your mis-perception? But I GUARANTEE you that it makes more sense than the no rights approach Yeah, but that's a Straw Man. and I GUARANTEE you that it makes more sense than thinking that ld is magic, and makes a derived work approach. I believe you and I have already shot down the 'ld-is-like-mkisofs' argument. In fact, it can't possibly be exempt by this paragraph in clause 2 of the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. This is actually a red herring. The way the GPLv2 _defines_ work and Program is by derived derived work. No, that's how it defines 'work based on the Program', see the quoted portion below. You're confused by _your_ interpretation of work and Program. You think that Program means binary, because that's you think normally. I can't see where you drew that conclusion from, but it's an incorrect conclusion. Program can denote the sources as much as the binaries. But the GPLv2 actually defines that Program is just the derivative work under copyright law. Really. Go look. It's right there at the very top, in section 0. /me looks again 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term modification.) In other words, in the GPL, Program does NOT mean binary. Never has. Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both forms are subject to copyright law and to the license, in spite of http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1 And in fact, it wouldn't make sense if it did, since you can use the GPL for other things than just programs (and people have). People do many odd things. How do you define source code and object code to other things that are not programs. So you _always_ get back to the question: what is derivative? And the GPLv2 doesn't actually even say anything about that, but EXPLICITLY says that it is left to copyright law. Exactly. No disagreement here. I'm not disputing this fact. In the point you quoted above, I was only disputing your argument of mere aggregation in the context of dynamic linking. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: In other words, in the GPL, Program does NOT mean binary. Never has. Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? Here's how it relates: - if a program is not a derived work of the C library, then it's not the program as defined by the GPLv2 AT ALL. In the case I'm talking about, libgpl (make it a GPLed libc) is the program, and a binary produced by linking anything else with the program (libgpl) is what you claim to be an aggregate (a term not defined in the GPL; is it defined in US law?). For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the output is a work based on the program, and whether the mere aggregation paragraph kicks in. If the output is not an aggregate, which is quite likely to be the case for dynamic linking, and quite possibly also for many static linking cases, then the mere aggregation paragraph of clause 2 does not kick in. If the output is indeed an aggregate, as it may quite likely be in the case of static linking, then the mere aggregation considerations of clause 2 may kick in and enable the 'anything else' to not be brought under the scope of the license. You still need permission to distribute the whole. The GPL asserts its non-interference with your ability to distribute the separate portion separately, under whatever license you can, as long as it's not a derived work from the GPL portion. But what about the whole? If you can't separate the whole into, well, the separate components, is it still a mere aggregate? mkisofs will create an image in which the components are all there, easily extractable individually in their original form. This is *clearly* mere aggregation, even if some components turn out to be works based on other GPL programs. But even in the case of static linking, this is not how it works. Say, if the portions of the static libgpl to be copied to the output are selected based on the contents of the 'anything else', could you legitimately claim that the output is not a derived work of both libgpl and this 'anything else', but rather a mere aggregation of unrelated works? In either case, if you distribute the linker output, and it happens to be found to be a derived work of the program (libgpl), aggregate or not, then you must license the whole of the linker output under the GPL, and this means to me that you have to be able to provide the source code of every portion thereof under the GPL, except for portions explicitly excluded by the GPL itself. So whether it's an aggregate or not is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether it's a derived work of a GPLed program (and if there is copying, it probably is) and whether the mere aggregation clause kicks in to grant an exception. THAT is the difference between static and dynamic. A simple command line flag to the linker shouldn't really reasonably be considered to change derivation status. If in one case there is extraction, copying and transformation of the GPLed intput, and in the other there is something much simpler (does it still qualify as extraction, copying and transformation?), then derivation becomes more or less obvious to prove, but you're right in that the status of the output probably won't change. The status of the inputs certainly doesn't. Either something is derived, or it's not. If it's derived, ld, mkisofs, putting them close together or shipping them on totally separate CD's doesn't matter. It's still derived. But the important questions at hand, I think, are what makes it derived, and whether it qualifies for any of the exceptions in the GPL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 18, 2006, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No automated, mechanical process can create a derivative work of software. (With a few exceptions not relevant here.) Can you explain what mechanisms are involved in copyright monopolies over object code, then? (there's a hint at http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1 ) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 18, 2006, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why you can't distribute a single DVD that combines the contents of the two you bought, so long as you destroy the originals. Because, for example, per Brazilian law since 1998, fair use only grants you the right to copy small portions of copyrighted works for personal use. http://www.petitiononline.com/netlivre Remember that the GPL is not only about US copyright law or US courts. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 18, 2006, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It makes no difference whether the mere aggregation paragraph kicks in because the mere aggregation paragraph is *explaining* the *law*. What matters is what the law actually *says*. You mean mere aggregation is defined in copyright law? I don't think so, otherwise the term 'aggregate' probably wouldn't have been used in GPLv3. AFAIK it's perfectly legitimate (even if immoral) for a copyright license to prohibit the distribution of the software governed by the license with anything else the author establishes. E.g., some Java virtual machine's license used to establish that you couldn't ship it along with other implementations of Java that didn't pass some comformance test. Now, the GPL doesn't do this. It doesn't say you can't distribute GPLed software along with any other software. It only says that, when you distribute together works that don't constitute mere aggregation (providing its own definition of mere aggregation), then the whole must be licensed under the GPL. The GPL could say that if you ever see the source code to a GPL'd work, every work you ever write must be placed under the GPL. But that wouldn't make it true, because that would be a requirement outside the GPL's scope. It is indeed possible that this would fall outside the scope of copyright law in the US, and it would not be morally acceptable for the GPL to impose such a condition. But then, since nobody can be forced to see the source code of a GPLed work, or any work for that matter, acceptance is voluntary, and one shouldn't enter an agreement one's not willing to abide by. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 19, 2006, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However I have a feeling that the lawyers in the employ of the companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all they need to do to comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in source form. And I have to admit that this does seem to comply with the GPL - to the letter, if not the spirit. I don't see that it does comply even with the letter. Consider this: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. The work, in this case, is the GPLed glue code, in source form, and the binary blob, without sources. See that, even though the binary blob is an independent and separate work in itself, and so it can indeed be distributed separaly under a different license, when it's distributed as part of a whole, then the whole must be on the terms of the GPL. So the question becomes whether the copyright holder of the glue code bound by these GPL terms. (a) If the glue code can be shown to be a derived work from Linux, even in source form, then the copyright holder *is* bound by these terms, and thus the whole could only be distributed under the GPL, so including the binary blob would be in violation of the license. (b) Now, if the glue code is *not* a derived work from Linux, then the copyright holder is entitled to use whatever terms she likes. It could be any license whatsoever, that permits the distribution of the whole or of the parts with whatever constraints copyright law permitted. Why would they choose the GPL in this case, then? Let's assume they're not intentionally violating the GPL, but rather that they believe they're entitled to do what they're doing, i.e., that they believe (a) their glue code is not a derived work from Linux. In this case, they *can* distribute the glue source code under the GPL along with their binary blob. But can anyone else? Methinks anyone else would be entitled to pass the same whole along under the GPL, per section 1, but wouldn't be entitled to distribute modified versions, because this would require the derived work to be licensed under the GPL, and nobody else is able to provide the source code to the binary blob. And then, who'd be entitled to complain? Only the copyright holder of the glue code and the binary blob. Would you like to be on the wrong end of a copyright infringement lawsuit by one of these binary blob distributors for distributing a patched version of their glue code + binary blob? More to the point, do you think they would actually bring suit, just to make it clear that the whole point is for them to keep a monopoly on the rights to modify and then distribute the combined work, in spite of using the GPL for (part of) the work? It gets trickier for binaries, since they are quite possibly derived works from the kernel, licensed under the GPL. If they are, they can't be distributed at all, not even by the copyright holder of the glue code + binary blob. If they aren't, then the copyright holder can distribute them, but nobody else can because that would be a violation of the GPL, as in the discussion above. So, the copyright holder would be keeping a monopoly on the rights to distribute binaries, and anyone else could be sued by them. Sure enough, one might think of praising them for distributing the glue code under the GPL. Then others could take this glue code and use it for something else that is useful, right? Well... Not quite. For one, even if enabling others to distribute glue code + binary blobs were a good thing, using somebody else's glue code means you're bound by the GPL requirements, so you can't ship the combination of the glue code with your binary blob. And then, if you intend to use the glue code to plug in some other code that is GPL-compatible in the kernel, perhaps you'd be better off not using the glue code at all, but rather modifying the GPL-compatible code to fit. So, even if condoning binary blobs were morally acceptable, we still wouldn't be gaining anything from this relationship, we'd only be enabling vendors to sell us their undocumented hardware while denying us our freedoms. Why should we do this? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list
Re: can someone explain inline once and for all?
On Jan 19, 2007, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: first, there appear to be three possible ways of specifying an inline routine in the kernel source: inline, __inline and __inline__ are equivalent as far as GCC is concerned, as you've already figured out. i vaguely recall that this has something to do with a distinction between C99 inline and gcc inline I suspect you're thinking of a different issue. In C99, static inline means the same as in GNU89, non-static non-extern inline means 'use this definition, that does not define objects with static storage nor references identifiers with internal linkage, for inlining or for a local definition, but make calls to it fast and don't generate any out-of-line definition', and extern inline means 'compile this code into a global out-of-line function, but also inline it wherever it makes sense'. In GNU89, static inline means 'compile this code into a local out-of-line function if needed, but also inline it wherever it makes sense', non-static non-extern inline means 'compile this code into a global out-of-line function, but also inline it wherever it makes sense', and extern inline means 'use this definition for inlining, but don't generate any out-of-line definition; because either I have a non-inline definition in this or in another translation unit, or I want undefined-symbol errors at link time if inlining fails.' So you see that the meaning of extern inline and non-extern inline are also reversed comparing GNU89 with C99. That's quite unfortunate, and GNU libc went to some trouble to encapsulate the intended inline meaning into preprocessor macros even in user headers, such that the intended meaning is obtained regardless of the compiler version. Fortunately, static inline is probably the most useful and thus common case anyway. Other constructs will work as in GNU89 up to GCC 4.3, even with -std=c99, but the meaning of inline in C99 and GNU99 is intended to be fixed to the C99 semantics in GCC 4.4, according to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-11/msg6.html That's still a long way ahead (the 4.3 development cycle has just started), but it wouldn't hurt to start fixing incompatibilities sooner rather than later, and coming up with a clean and uniform set of inline macros that express intended meaning for the kernel to use. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Abolishing the DMCA
On Dec 14, 2006, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you missed the point that my patch prevents valid usages of non-GPL modules from happening, which is not acceptable. What if you changed your patch so as to only permit loading of possibly-infringing drivers after some flag in /proc is set, and logging to the console a message explaining (i) why such drivers might be infringing and how to contact the copyright holders to get the infringement stopped, and (ii) how to get it loaded if you believe it's ok. Then the patch would change from a probably-harmful DRM technique to an educational tool, that wouldn't impose any major inconvenience to those who are entitled to use the combination of code that can't be distributed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: GPL only modules
On Dec 14, 2006, Jeff V. Merkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FREE implies a transfer of ownsership It's about freedom, not price. And even then, it's the license that has not cost, not the copyright. and you also have to contend with the Doctrine of Estoppel. i.e. if someone has been using the code for over two years, and you have not brought a cause of action, you are BARRED from doing so under the Doctrine of Estoppel and statute of limitations. Sure, but we're not necessarily talking about code that is two years old. We're talking about future releases. Then, if someone interfaces with code that was already there before, they might claim they're still entitled to do so. But if it's new code they interface with, or new code they wrote after this clarification is published, would they still be entitled to estoppel? FWIW, IANAL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 11, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks and which i suspect it is mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux drivers ;-) XFS, the largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code - and ZFS (i've never seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux drivers on the other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code and enable Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today. Guess which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-) Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it not? ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 12, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it not? ;-) Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in this to actually further some open-source agenda. Err, no. I was merely questioning Ingo's reasoning that Sun wanted Linux's drivers as badly as he made it seem. All the fuss about waiting for and going to GPLv3 wouldn't get them that. Moving to GPLv2 would, and still, they aren't doing it. That was my point. FWIW, I share most of your assessment and wait-and-see attitude about Sun's situation. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.) You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.) You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-) I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and cannot read or think for themselves. Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so? Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the former. Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2 models better your intentions than GPLv3. Your assessment about sharing of code between Linux and OpenSolaris very much makes it seem like that the spirit of sharing, of letting others run, study, modify and share the code as long as they respect others' freedoms, has never been what moved you. Rather, you seem to perceive the GPL as demanding some form of payback, of contribution, rather than the respect for others' freedoms that it requires. In fact, you said something along these lines yourself many months ago. With this different frame of mind, it is not surprising at all that you don't find GPLv3 a better license. With different goals in mind, reasonable people can reach different conclusions. But claiming that GPLv3 is changing the spirit of the license, or that it prohibits certain kinds of software, is plain false. In fact, the spirit has always been described in its preamble, and it didn't change at all: it's all about respecting others' freedoms. Sure, this evokes a number of other nice behaviors in various players, and it's clear to me that it's in these other nice behaviors that you seek when you choose GPLv2. There's nothing inherently wrong in that. However, it seems to me that GPLv3 would do an even better job at serving these goals than GPLv2, even if the holes v3 plugs that enabled players to disrespect others' freedoms might steer away the participants who are not willing to contribute, to really be part of your community. It's not like you lose much. But the new defenses against disrespect for freedoms introduced in GPLv3 may turn out to be very helpful, not only in protecting your community from external threats, but also in strengthening participation, as the benefits of participation outweight the perceived costs of respecting others' freedoms. It sure seems to me that trading some threats and non-contributors for some more-committed participants is a good idea. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Bernd Paysan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand about the GPLv3 with keys is why that depends on the use case. As user of commercial devices like company routers, firewalls and such, which often are Linux based, I don't want them sealed by the vendor, as well. An explicit statement is even worse than an implicit one (as in the GPLv2, which has been tested in a German court by Harald Welte - Siemens had to turn in the keys). My personal guess as to the reasoning behind this decision is that consumer devices are the ones that require most attention, mainly because the home users are the ones with least (individual) power to demand respect for their freedoms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same spirit as the GPL v2. I guess it comes down to what people thought the spirit of the GPL v2 was. So let's go back to the preamble, that provides motivations and some guidance as to the interpretation of the legal text (i.e., the spirit of the license): [...] the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. [...] [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet this spirit? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd like to think the issues that arose from misunderstandings of the earlier drafts are no longer an issue. Is it not so? No. The anti-DRM language is still there, and no, it was never a misunderstanding. It was claimed that GPLv3 would forbid implementations of DRM. That's just plain false. If you don't think so, please show what terms in the latest draft prohibit DRM (as opposed to merely making it ineffective, a necessary consequence of abiding by the spirit of all GNU GPLs) It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. Another misunderstanding. The FSF never said TiVo didn't do anything wrong. It only said it didn't think there was a license violation. I personally disagree with that assessment, but IANAL. Anyhow, deciding whether it's right or wrong is not the same as deciding whether it's legal or illegal. Law doesn't define what's right or wrong. That's what morals and ethics do. want to protect the integrity of that hardware. The kernel license covers the *kernel*. When they choose to include a copy of the kernel in their hardware that they can modify but others can't, they're failing to comply with the spirit of the license. For brevity, I won't repeat the quotes from the GPLv2 preamble, that I just included in the message I sent to Lennart Sorensen in this same thread. Can you justify how you came to the conclusion (if you did) that TiVo is abiding by the spirit of the license? Keeping on making false claims about the license drafts can be one of two things: misunderstandings, out of ambiguity in the text or preconceptions, or ill intentions. I'd rather believe it's the former. No, it was not the former. Wow, I didn't see that coming. Public admission of ill intentions? ;-) :-D :-P And I think the whole the kernel developers misunderstand the license crap that the FSF was saying (several times) was very trying to confuse the issue: the FSF knew damn well which part of the license was obnoxious, they just tried to confuse the issue by pointing to *another* part of the license. Let me see if I got this right. There was a section entitled 3. Digital Restrictions Management in GPLv3dd1. Are you saying that, when people complained about the DRM clause, they actually meant the provisions in 1. Source Code, that established a requirement to include the source code corresponding to functional signatures, namely the signing keys, as part of the corresponding source code? And you're just parrotting their idiotic line. Please watch your tone. If you find offense at the allegedly condescending tone in which the FSF says misunderstanding, how do you expect me and the FSF to take this? It is also odd that you claim the right to be entitled to your own opinion and reading about stuff, while denying myself the same right. Please don't do that. I have a mind of my own, and the fact that I reach similar conclusions doesn't make me a parrot. Even more so when I actually have some influence on those conclusions. Now, of course you can look at the licenses and decide that you never agreed with the spirit of the GPL in the first place, and that GPLv2 models better your intentions than GPLv3. And this is again the same *disease*. You claim that I misunderstood the spirit of the GPL. Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, does *not* mean that they can claim that others misunderstood the license. I understood it perfectly fine, and it fit my needs. So tell me: who is the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't think so. You are definitely confused. You're talking about the legal terms, while I'm talking about the spirit. The legal terms tried to reflect the spirit as best as they could, but they left some holes. Some people found them and started exploiting them. Sure, if you want to leave those holes unplugged in your code, that's your decision. I don't doubt that the GPLv2 legal terms fit the bill for you. I think GPLv3 would do even better in this regard. But none of this is about the spirit of the GPL. Claiming GPLv3 changes the spirit is totally missing the point of what the spirit amounts to. The spirit is described in the preamble, it's not the legal terms. The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a tit-for-tat license, Ok, let's explore this argument. In what sense is it tit-for-tat? What is tit-for-tat about it? What is the payback an author who releases
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote: find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal interpretation. Well, even the FSF lawyers did, Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right, and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license. Only courts of law can do that. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet this spirit? What kind of logic is that? It sounds like Can you prove that God doesn't exist? By this reasoning, it sounds like you've been claiming that God does exist, even though you can't prove it. It shouldn't be anywhere that difficult to show that the GPLv3 fails to meet the spirit of the GPLs. You just have to show a single counter-example. Since there are so many objections to the changes, it shouldn't be that hard. Can you at least try? The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says that what Tivo did was against the spirit. That's *bullshit*. Oh, good, let's take this one. if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] you must give the recipients all the rights that you have So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. It doesn't give the recipients the same right. Oops. Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me. Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit. In other words, GPLv3 restricts rights that do not need to be restricted, That's correct. They don't need to be restricted. The whole idea of copyleft, implemented through the GPL, is not based on needs, but rather on the wish to defend the freedoms established in the preamble from those who would rather not respect them. Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer) from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR? Do you deny that they can still do it themselves? Think of it this way: what if the GPLv3 had an addition saying You can not use this software to make a weapon. This would make GPLv3 a non-Free Software license. But the GPLv3 last call draft doesn't say anything along these lines. You can use the software as much as you like, even in DVRs, and even to implement DRM in them, as long as you respect the users' freedoms to change and share the software. Per the GPLv3 (paraphrased), if it is possible to install modified versions of the covered program in the device, you must tell the recipient how to do it. Otherwise, the freedom to modify the program is being too severely limited. And, in the particular case of TiVo, it's a case of distributing incomplete source code, of refraining from including functional portions of the source code. In other words, GPLv3 *restricts* peoples freedoms more than it protects them. While you look at it from the point of view of TiVo, who wants to be free to prohibit people from modifying the workings of the device it sells while it can still modify it itself, and it does that in order to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing things they're legally entitled to do, I see a lot more prohibitions than freedoms in what TiVo does. I don't understand why you'd stand up for it. Is it more important that a single company be allowed to impose prohibitions on others in order for its business model to work, than to maintain the spirit of hacking and sharing that enabled Free Software and Linux to flourish? Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that stopped people from modifying Linux in them? where I added the that you can do so in place on your devices, even if those devices weren't licensed under the GPL. You're mistakenly focusing on the device. As you say, the device is not under the license. What's under the license is the software in it. And that license spirit requires the distributor to pass on the right to modify the software. I don't know if you've followed US politics very much over the last six years, but there's been a lot of protecting our freedoms going on. And it's been ugly. Maybe you could realize that sometimes protecting your freedom is *anything*but*! Is this why you're overreacting? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] you must give the recipients all the rights that you have So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. And they give you the same right that they had, which is obtain free software that you can modify and redistribute. There's nothing in there that says they should give you the tools they used after they received the software, which is what you seem to be looking for. Can they modify the software in their device? Do they pass this right on? TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. It doesn't give the recipients the same right. It does, can't you modify their kernel source? It's not the kernel source. That's not where the TiVo anti-tampering machinery blocks modifications. It's about that copy of the kernel that ships in the device in object code. That's the one that TiVo customers ought to be entitled to modify, if TiVo can modify it itself. Where does it say you should be able to run you modifications on the same hardware? Where it says that you should pass on all the rights that you have. While TiVo retains the ability to replace, upgrade, fix, break or make any other change in the GPLed software in the device, it ought to pass it on to its customers. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Jörn Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 June 2007 14:33:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a tit-for-tat license, and you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid. One could even add that tit-for-tat appears to be the best strategy in game theory for continuous runs of the prisoners dilemma. It is, indeed. Now the remaining piece of the proof is to show that the GPLv2 is tit-for-tat. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Accusing people of arguing opinions that are not their own may well be appropriate. Accusing them of not be able to think is not. I agree with the latter, but the former is seldom appropriate. Any accusation ought to be provable, and it's nearly impossible to prove that an opinion held by someone is not his own. People quite often arrive at similar opinions independently. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe. Are you playing Linus' sheeple and parroting his lines just to make a point, or are you like that all the time? ;-) PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting kicked out of the FSF-LA Don't worry, I'm not speaking even for FSFLA, and I'm entitled to my own opinion. I haven't consulted other FSFLA members about this. This is all my own personal opinion. It just so happens that I'm very closely involved in the process, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I happen to share a similar moral and ethical background with others involved in the process, so I arrive at similar conclusions. And then, I influence the process myself, so it's not like some of the arguments I brought up here weren't taken into account while creating the GPLv3, and adopted by its other proponents. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:55:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 13, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] you must give the recipients all the rights that you have So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. Can they modify the software in their device? Do they pass this right on? But this *ISN'T* a right that the GPLv2 *REQUIRES* be passed on. You may be right. The spirit says it should, but the legalese may have missed the mark. So GPLv3 makes it clear that it is. It's about that copy of the kernel that ships in the device in object code. That's the one that TiVo customers ought to be entitled to modify, if TiVo can modify it itself. The GPLv2 makes no real provision for *DIRECTLY* modifying object code. Sure. And that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is being able to replace, upgrade, fix, tweak, hack, and otherwise modify the program on the machine in the same way that the vendor still can. What provisions the GPLv2 has apply to the source code. This is too narrow a view of the GPLv2 provisions. And no, the end user *SHOULD* *NOT* be entitled to run whatever kernel they like on a TiVO. It was designed with the install new kernel functionality so that the TiVO corporation could update the kernel running on the hardware when security problems came up, when bugs were fixed or even when the new version gives better performance. I.e., it was designed such that TiVo could modify the installed kernel, but the user couldn't. That's an outright violation of the spirit of the GPL. Where does it say you should be able to run you modifications on the same hardware? Where it says that you should pass on all the rights that you have. While TiVo retains the ability to replace, upgrade, fix, break or make any other change in the GPLed software in the device, it ought to pass it on to its customers. It *DOES* *NOT* say All rights that you have. It says All rights that are granted you by this license. I suggest you to reboot into memtest ;-) The preamble of GPLv2 says: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. If every piece of software released under the GPL had *ALL* rights passed on, then *ANYONE* could do the I'm granting company X the right to use this software outside the GPL for $50,000USD. The requirement above applies to licensees, not to the licensor. The licensor doesn't have to pass on all the rights s/he has, s/he only decides to respect the licensee's freedoms, conditioned to the respect of others' freedoms by means of passing on all rights the licensee has over the software. Arguably, one could use this argument to state that any authors of derived works ought to pass on the right to choose the license for the derived work under the GPL, but since (a) the above is not in the legal terms, and (b) the downstream recipients would be bound by the terms of the GPL anyway, and that requires the use of the GPL itself, this would make no difference whatsoever. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still doesn't explain why you have argued that the GPLv3 doesn't attempt to cover hardware and then provide proof that it does. It doesn't cover hardware, in the same way that it doesn't cover patents, and it doesn't cover pro-DRM laws. It merely arranges, as best as we've managed a copyright license to do, that they can't be used as excuses (or tools) to disrespect the freedoms that the GPL demands all licensees to respect for other users. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* covered by the GPL. Indeed, TiVO has this legal right. But then they must not use software under the GPLv3 in it. And, arguably, they must not use software under the GPLv2 either. In the case of 99% of the hardware targeted by the clause of the GPLv3 you elucidate on, the ability to install modified versions of the software was *NOT* intended for that use, nor was it intended for *ANYONE* *EXCEPT* trained service personell to have *ACCESS* to that functionality. Arguing otherwise is just idiotic - I have never found a piece of high tech hardware (like a TiVO) that was designed for the end-user to modify. (yes, installing a new version of the linux kernel is modifying the system) It's about time for a change for better, wouldn't you think? In 95% of the desktop computers, you can't make changes to the OS that runs on it. Whom is this good for? And? They distribute the kernel source - as they recieved it - in compliance with the GPL. This makes it seem like you think that passing on the source code is enough to comply with the GPL. Check your assumptions. It's not. to prohibit people from removing locks that stop them from doing things they're legally entitled to do What Legally Entitled things? Time shifting of any shows, creating copies of shows for personal use, letting others do so. Think fair use, and how TiVO software and DRM in general gets in the way. And... You do realize that almost every difference between the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 is going to cause a hell of a lot of problems? For those who are not willing to abide by the spirit of the license, yes. Does it look like I'm concerned about them? If they're willing to look for and maybe even find holes in the license to disrespect users' freedoms, why should I worry about the problems that plugging these holes is going to cause them? If they'd taken the spirit of the GPL for what it is, instead of looking for loopholes, this improved wording wouldn't be causing them any problems whatsoever. The fact that the GPLv3 is designed to prevent things that RMS *PERSONALLY* finds distasteful - DRM and the like - is a big turn-off for a *LOT* of people. This is a pretty sad accusation. 2/3s of the Free Software packages use the GPL with its existing spirit, and you still haven't shown that any changes proposed in GPLv3 fail to abide by the same spirit. That some (many?) people misunderstood or disregarded the spirit is an unfortunate fact, but trying to pose the patching that's going into GPLv3 as if it was a matter of personal taste, rather than improved compliance with the spirit, is unfair and uncalled for. (Personally I don't like *ANY* version of the GPL, because there are chunks I have problems with) What are you doing lurking and spreading confusion in a list about a project that chose to use it, then? Do you expect Linux would have flourished if computers had locks that stopped people from modifying Linux in them? But you aren't talking about a computer here. You're talking about a mass-market device that must comply with both US and International copyright law - and that's just a TiVO. Oh, sorry. I missed when the meaning of the word computer was narrowed from machine with a general-purpose microprocessor, memory and other peripherals to whatever you decide it is. And then, the GPL doesn't talk about computers at all. It's not about the hardware, it's about the software, remember? ;-) if you upload a modified linux kernel to your wireless router that gives it a 2000 foot range, you've just broken the law At which point, you get punished by the law system. *AND* violated the license on the hardware which states that you won't modify it or the controlling software Err.. The hardware licensor who includes software under the GPL be supposed to be a licensee of the software in order to have legal permission to distribute it, at which point the following provision kicks in: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program) [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. [...] And here's one of the rights granted herein that would be restricted by this hardware license: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, So such a restriction in the hardware license seems to be failure to comply with the GPL, which means the violator may lose the license. even things like the connectors used to upload the operating software at the factory that people now cannot have in a device that runs GPL(v3) covered software unless they ship the related Installation
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (and, in the case of a TiVO, the signing keys are part of the installation, not the running or building. Is installation not a precondition for running? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] you must give the recipients all the rights that you have So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. It doesn't give the recipients the same right. Sure it does; you received a program (the kernel) and you can modify it. If I take the software I received, build it and install it on the same hardware, it won't run. Something is missing in the source code I received, I guess.. If I make changes to the source code, build it, and install it on that same computer, it won't run. How is that being able to modify *that* copy of the program? If TiVo makes the same changes, builds tehm, and installs it on my computer, it will run just fine. How are they passing on the right they had to me? You also received hardware; they don't support modification of that. They don't have to support them. They don't have to help me if it breaks. But if they can do it and I can't, they're failing to comply with the spirit of the GPL. Nowhere in the license does it say they have to, because the license only covers the program. They can't distribute the program while imposing restrictions on modification not present in the software license itself. Or are you claiming that putting software on hardware makes the result a derivative work? I think it falls under the mere aggregation clause. I tend to agree, in this particular case, but IANAL. I don't rule out derivative works in future attempts to find loopholes in the GPL. What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM Then they wouldn't have the ability to change it any more, so there wouldn't be such a right to pass on to the users. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either a device is distributed, like the common PC, that is designed for the user to change and update the software on, or, like the PS2 it isn't designed for that. Have you ever installed GNU/Linux on a PC Designed for Microsoft Windows? How dare you? ;-) If, OTOH, the hardware was never meant for the end-user to install custom versions of the software on, then while the signing keys are still *technically* part of the source, in practice they are not. Why? Because in most of those cases the end-user isn't granted the right to install and run custom binaries on the hardware. And distributing the GPLed software under this restriction is quite likely copyright infringement. I know this. As I said, I doubt that anyone who tried this in America would have the success he has had. On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote: Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs? ;-) :-P :-D -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tivo gets sick of the endless flamewars on lkml, signs a copy of QNX, pushes it out to the hardware. No more Linux on Tivo. What do we lose? Do we actually get any benefit whatsoever from TiVO's choice of Linux as the kernel for its device? Do TiVO customers lose anything from the change from one non-Free software to another? (the Linux binary, as shipped in the TiVO, has become non-Free) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Forrest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they replace the ROM, and ship it back to me. 2.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they load new code into it, and ship it back to me. How do these two differ? Or is it now just a question of the ROM being in a socket? I can't see how the technicalities of how the hardware is constructed can change the legality of the software. I don't see that they differ. If the software can be replaced, the manufacturer ought to tell you how to do it. It doesn't have to do it for you, it doesn't have to give you the hardware tools needed to do it, but if you're not able to start from the source code and the information provided by the manufacturer and get to a modified version of the software on the device, while the manufacturer could do it, then the manufacturer is locking you in, and therefore you're not free. This is a clear violation of the spirit of the license, even if the legalese might make room for some such misbehavior. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: User B buys the router and modifies the kernel so it drives the WiFi to an output power twice that which it is licensed to carry. FCC finds out and prosecutes User B for violating the regulations. Ok so far. FCC then pulls the small companies license until they change their hardware so the driver can't push it to transmit at a higher power level and levies a fine. I'd say this is unfair, but if it can happen, then maybe the small company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing restrictions of modification on any software in the device, all the way from hardware-constrained output power to hardware-verified authorized configuration parameters. Growing the base of installed GPL covered software, When this doesn't bring freedom to people, when people can't actually enjoy the freedoms that the software is supposed to provide, I don't see why this would be a good thing. What's the merit in being able to claim vendor X chose my Free Software and locked it down such that users don't get the freedoms I meant for them, and I'm happy about it? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've never had a reason to want to change the way any device like a TiVO works. So I can't comment on this. Have you never wanted to improve any aspect of the software in your cell phone? In your TV, VCR, DVD player, anything? In the microwave oven, maybe? On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:38:05 Alexandre Oliva wrote: In 95% of the desktop computers, you can't make changes to the OS that runs on it. Whom is this good for? Faulty logic. I have yet to find a computer that I couldn't change the OS on. I was not talking about installing another OS, I was talking about making changes to the OS. As in, improving one particular driver, avoiding a blue screen, stuff like that. Or do you mean transferring the recorded copies off the TiVO and on to a different medium? Sure. Such that I can watch shows while wasting time in public transportation, in an airplane, whatever. DRM, I do agree, gets in the way of Fair Use. And the fact that TiVO can be, and has been modified remotely to add restrictions on what users could do, means nothing you do with it is safe. You, and everything you've recorded with the TiVO, are at the mercy of this one company. So you're not concerned that you're potentially pushing companies that would otherwise be major consumers of GPL'd software away? That doesn't make sense to me. What would their consuming GPL software buy us, if they won't respect users' freedoms, which is the very reason behind the GPL? Heck, if they don't want to play by the rules, that's up to them. But then they shouldn't use the software at all. Yeah, I wish they'd rather play by the rules, but if they don't want to, too bad, for us and for them. Why should I repeat Linus' explanation of the ways that GPLv3 violates the spirit of GPLv2? Don't worry about parrotting here, he hasn't provided that explanation yet ;-) Please give it a try. BTW, what license is Linux licensed under? It's GPLv2 plus userland exception, right? (There's some additional module exception, right?) And why shouldn't I pose it as a matter of Personal Taste? The biggest and most powerful voice in the FSF says I don't like Tivoization and I don't like DRM and when the GPLv3 appears it has language that makes those violations of the license. Have you ever wondered *why* he doesn't like them? Could it possibly be because they harm the goal of his life, which is to enable people to live their digital lives in freedom? Just like people have started using GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux to refer to Linux No, no, you got it wrong. Linux is the kernel. GNU was the nearly-complete operating system it fit in. GNU+Linux is a complete operating system. And you don't have to believe me, believe Linus, the initial author of Linux: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01 Although linux is a complete kernel Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. A TiVO is not, and has never been, a General Purpose Computational Device. Err... Last I looked it was a bunch of general-purpose components, packaged in a way that made it not look like a general-purpose computer. Who gets to decide? And with what motivations? Exactly. And I don't see anything about a TiVO (or any device that, like a TiVO, requires binaries that run on it to be digitally signed) that stops you from exercising the freedoms guaranteed by the GPL. 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it if you upload a modified linux kernel to your wireless router that gives it a 2000 foot range, you've just broken the law At which point, you get punished by the law system. But the GPLv2 gives companies a chance to protect themselves from legal actions by people that are sure to follow. So does the GPLv3. It might be a bit narrower, to cut on other kinds of abuses, but all constraints I'm aware of that are mandated by law can still be achieved. The point is to forbid disrespecting users' freedoms to modify the software. Configuration parameters for the hardware, needed to comply with regulations, can be easily taken care of without disrespecting users' freedoms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: since the latest draft of the GPLv3 now discriminates against some uses (industrial vs commercial I think are the terms used) A User Product is either (1) a consumer product, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. does it even qualify as a Open Source lincense anymore by the OSI terms? The definition is about the hardware, not the software, so it may still qualify. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a company sells you hardware that includes a ROM that contains GPL'ed software, are they in violation of the GPL if they don't include a ROM burner in the hardware? Or are ROM burners like compilers, where you have to supply your own? this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the two courts are in the same country there's usually a higher court above both that can resolve this. But what if let's say the highest court in the USA and the highest court in Germany would disagree on such a matter? Upgrade the license so as to provide guidance as to the intent of the authors, such that the disagreement doesn't happen again. If there's room in each country's laws to fix the problem, that is. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. Stop right there. You seem to make the mistake to think that software is something physical. Err, no. Software, per legal definitions in Brazil, US and elsewhere, require some physical support. That's the hard disk in the TiVO DVR, in this case. I don't see how this matters, though. TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. (b) They never modified a copy of Linux - they simply replaced it with another copy of Linux. The only thing that actually got *modified* was their hardware! Per this reasoning, nobody never modifies software. When you open a source file in your editor, you make changes to it, then save it, you're not modifying it, you're replacing it with another copy, and the only thing that actually got modified was the hardware. Maybe look what modify means in legal context? Then refer to the GPL: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, And their hardware (and firmware) will run some integrity checks on *whatever* copies of software they have. This is all totally outside Linux itself. Agreed. But as it turns out they use these checks to stop people from modifying the copy of Linux they ship in the device, and this restriction is a GPL violation because they don't provide information you need to build a functioning modified version. Btw, according to your _insane_ notion of a copy of software, you can never distribute GPL'd software on a CD-ROM, since you've taken away the right of people to modify that CD-ROM by burning and fixating it. You don't retain that right yourself. When you pass that copy on, you pass it on with all the rights that you have. No problem here. This is no different from the software on ROM. And I'm saying that the GPLv2 can mroe straightforwardly be read the way I read it - to talk about software, and to realize that software is not a copy, it's a more abstract thing. If you choose to disregard the legal meaning of the legal terms used in the GPLv2, you may have a point. that means that they have to give you access to and control over the SOFTWARE. Yes. That's all I'm saying. You just can't use the hardware to take that control away. That would be a violation of the license. Face it: the GPLv3 is a _new_ license. Making funamentally _different_ and _new_ restrictions that do not exist in the GPLv2, This is true. and do not exist in the preamble. This is not true. The spirit remains the same: let people modify and share the software. If the binary you got can't be created out of the corresponding sources, something is missing. If it won't run without this missing bit, you're missing functional portions of the source code. This all means the hardware is being used to impose a restriction on modification of the software, which is against the spirit of the GPL, and quite likely against its letter as well. If you don't want it to be so, you can always add an additional permission that clarifies this bit, such that TiVO and you will be happy. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. The question is whether this includes private keys. No. That's the question as the FSF would like to frame it. No. The FSF actually does *not* want to take this position. That's why it chose the formulation of Installation Instructions. It doesn't share my view that the keys needed to sign a binary in order for it to work are part of the source code. And you could actually replace their copy of Linux with another one. It would have to have the same SHA1 to actually start _running_, but that's the hardware's choice. That's the hardware imposing a restriction on modification of the software. It doesn't matter how elaborate the excuse is to justify denying users' freedoms: it's against the spirit of the GPL, and the GPL will be amended as needed to plug such holes. So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT! That's an interesting argument. People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about it. When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have a right to modify that copy. And here's a big clue for people: anybody who thinks that I'm violating the GPLv2 by not giving out my private SSH key to master.kernel.org is a f*cking moron! Agreed, except I'd probably use a lighter term. See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo distribution? Yes. You see how TiVO is different? It is modifyable, and I actually receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't. The rights that the GPLv2 gives to the software, is to something much bigger than the particular copy of the software. Indeed, it's something bigger. But this doesn't exclude the smaller things, does it? Can people really not see the difference between the software and a particular encoded copy of the software? There is a difference. But the GPL doesn't limit itself to the former. It explicitly talks about copies. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:59, Alexandre Oliva wrote:  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether  gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients  all the rights that you have.  So if I am a sole author of a program and I chose to distribute it under GPL then you're not a licensee, you're a licensor, and these terms don't apply to you. Already covered upthread BTW. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 14 June 2007 02:55:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote: While TiVo retains the ability to replace, upgrade, fix, break or make any other change in the GPLed software in the device, it ought to pass it on to its customers. So according to your logic, I can go to Sharp's website and download the GPL source code for their Zaurus. But I don't own a Sharp Zaurus; to keep with your interpretation of the spirit of GPL, they have to give me a Zaurus so that I can run my modifications on the same hardware? Sharp can modify the copy of the code in your Zaurus as much as you do, when you don't have a Zaurus. I don't see how you can get to the conclusion that they have to give you a Zaurus, when all you're getting is software. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:51:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:38:05 Alexandre Oliva wrote: In 95% of the desktop computers, you can't make changes to the OS that runs on it. Whom is this good for? Faulty logic. I have yet to find a computer that I couldn't change the OS on. I was not talking about installing another OS, I was talking about making changes to the OS. As in, improving one particular driver, avoiding a blue screen, stuff like that. Ah, well... In the case of Windos and other proprietary OS's I try to educate people and get them to switch. Good. So I presume you'd tell them to switch away from a turned-proprietary GNU/Linux operating system as well, right? So, again, what do we gain if companies abuse the GPL and disrespect users' rights that we meant them to respect? Or do you mean transferring the recorded copies off the TiVO and on to a different medium? Sure. Such that I can watch shows while wasting time in public transportation, in an airplane, whatever. Under the US Copyright law I'm not sure that making a second copy like that is legal. IIRC, Fair Use only allows for one copy. Even if you delete the first copy? Actually, I thought fair use in US entitled you to make a backup copy. So the copy in your TiVO would be your original, and the external copy would be your fair-use backup. As has been noted in their TOS and the licenses for the hardware from the start. If it is used to disrespect the inalienable freedoms associated with the GPL software in the device, it seems like a license violation to me. The FSF itself explicitly reserves the right to change the GPL at any time - which is no different. Actually, it's completely different. If the FSF revises the GPL, the old version remains available for anyone to use for any new software, and all software released under the old version remains available under that old version. In contrast, your TiVO may get a software upgrade without your permission that will take your rights away from that point on, and there's very little you can do about it, other than unplugging it from the network to avoid the upgrade if it's not too late already. A lot of them would probably have private modifications that would never be distributed - and under the GPLv2 it is clear that you can keep modifications private as long as you don't distribute them. Likewise with GPLv3. Pushing them away means that they'd not do that because they would be concerned that the license will change under them in such a way that even those private modifications need to be released to the public. This would not only change the spirit of the license, but turn it into a non-Free Software license. And then, again, the license can't possibly be changed from under them. A new revision of the GPL would only affect software licensed under that new revision. If you already got it under an earlier revision, you know what you got, and nobody can take that away from you. (and don't try to argue that even though those modifications are truly private (to the company) they should be released anyway to comply with the spirit of the license. It is made clear that it isn't by the text of the license itself) How could you possibly come to the conclusion that forcing anyone to release private modifications would be in compliance with the spirit of the license? can != must Why should I repeat Linus' explanation of the ways that GPLv3 violates the spirit of GPLv2? Don't worry about parrotting here, he hasn't provided that explanation yet ;-) Please give it a try. But he has. Whether you have accepted that his explanations are valid or not doesn't change the fact. His explanation is based on a reading of the license that doesn't match what its authors meant. I guess the authors know better what they meant the spirit of the license to be than someone else who studied it a lot but that until very recently couldn't even tell the spirit from the legal terms. Just like people have started using GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux to refer to Linux No, no, you got it wrong. Linux is the kernel. GNU was the nearly-complete operating system it fit in. GNU+Linux is a complete operating system. *AND* you cut out the bit where I said I have no problems with it Referring to Linux as GNU/Linux would be wrong, because Linux is the kernel, and that's unrelated with the GNU operating system. It's the combination of them that forms GNU+Linux. And it's referring to this combination as Linux that is wrong. I'm sorry that I got the impression that you meant the combination when you wrote refer to Linux above. It looked like you meant the combination, since I've never seen anyone call the kernel GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux. Never claimed otherwise. The problem is that using a composite name like
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:58:26AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Do we actually get any benefit whatsoever from TiVO's choice of Linux as the kernel for its device? Sure, if they make any changes or fixes to Linux. Other than that, only the same benefit that Microsoft get from Windows piracy - TiVo employees become familiar with Linux and are more likely to use it and maybe contribute more in another job later. Now, what if TiVO actually permitted all of its customers to make changes or fixes to Linux, and become familiar with it and become more likely to use it and maybe contribute more later? Would we lose more or gain more? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And? There is *absolutely* *nothing* in any version of the GPL *prior* to 3 that says that hardware cannot impose restrictions. It's not that the hardware is deciding to impose restrictions on its own. It's the hardware distributor that is deciding to use the hardware to impose restrictions on the user. Seems like a violation of section 6 of GPLv2 to me. What the GPL *does* say is that you can't add additional restrictions to the license Not quite. It's more general than that: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. So take another example: I obviously distribute code that is copyrighted by others under the GPLv2. Do I follow the GPLv2? I sure as hell do! But do I give you the same rights as I have to modify the copy on master.kernel.org as I have? I sure as hell DO NOT! That's an interesting argument. People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about it. When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have a right to modify that copy. But you get the TiVO corporations copy of the software? Yes. The customer gets the copy that TiVO stored in the hard disk in the device it sells. And it's that copy that the customer is entitled to modify because TiVO is still able to modify it. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Matt Keenan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: Err, no. Software, per legal definitions in Brazil, US and elsewhere, require some physical support. That's the hard disk in the TiVO DVR, in this case. I don't see how this matters, though. I'm now intrigued, where are these (Brazilian and US) definitions stipulated, and under what authority? http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccIVIL_03/LEIS/L9609.htm LEI Nº 9.609 , DE 19 DE FEVEREIRO DE 1998. Art. 1º Programa de computador é a expressão de um conjunto organizado de instruções em linguagem natural ou codificada, contida em suporte ^^ fÃsico de qualquer natureza, de emprego necessário em máquinas ^^^ automáticas de tratamento da informação, dispositivos, instrumentos ou equipamentos periféricos, baseados em técnica digital ou análoga, para fazê-los funcionar de modo e para fins determinados. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Paul Mundt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see how you can claim that the vendor is infringing on your freedom, _you_ made the decision to go out and buy the product knowing that the vendor wasn't going to go out of their way to help you hack the device. But I also made this decision fully aware that the software included in the package was published under a license that said I was entitled to modify it. More than once I purchased a device that claimed to have GNU/Linux software on it, only to find out that I couldn't use the freedoms, because the distributor was infringing the license in various ways. If you don't like what the vendor has done with the product, you have the freedom to not support the vendor, and to try and encourage people to follow suit. Sure. But wouldn't it be nice if the copyright holder could also help in this effort? It doesn't mean the copyright holder has to: s/he can always grant an additional permission, or simply refrain from enforcing this provision of the license. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Alan Milnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed - if you want to take my work you are welcome as long as you contribute back your changes. That's the deal that GPL2 enforces and why it has been so successful. Where did you get this impression that GPLv2 enforces this deal? It doesn't, and this is *exactly* why I dispute the claim that GPLv2 is tit-for-tat. GPL3 is a very different beast with a much wider agenda, The agenda is *precisely* the same: ensure that all users are free to modify and share the licensed software. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the proper limit is the boundary where the limit of the software is - because that's the only sane and globally workable way to stop the power-hungry. But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free Software in it. It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that they're entitled to have. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, well... In the case of Windos and other proprietary OS's I try to educate people and get them to switch. Good. So I presume you'd tell them to switch away from a turned-proprietary GNU/Linux operating system as well, right? If that happened I'd be lost. I've tried the various BSD's and found they had problems with hardware support and getting a new version of the BSD kernel to compile and boot is something of a black art. The point is moot, though. It can never happen. Look again, it's already happened in the TiVO and other devices. The software that ships in them is no longer Free Software. Consider a new microprocessor. Consider that Linux is ported to it by the microprocessor manufacturer. Consider that the manufacturer only sells devices with that microprocessor with TiVO-like locks. How exactly can you enjoy the freedoms WRT the GPLed software you got from the manufacturer? Now consider that you have a single computer, and that's built by TiVO. How exactly can you enjoy the freedoms the author meant you to have, if the TiVO box won't run the program after you modify it? If this run modified copies on the same hardware you received the original on *IS* the spirit of the license, then why isn't it stated anywhere before GPLv3? For the same reasons that the pro-DRM laws weren't mentioned before, and the patent retaliation clauses weren't mention before: these specific cases hadn't been studied, only the general idea of respecting users' freedoms was. I'll grant you that. But, at this point, where can I find a copy of the GPLv1 without having to dig around the net ? In the program you received under GPLv1. Hey, you said there was code under GPLv1.1 in the Linux tree. Then, there should be a copy of GPLv1.1 in there, otherwise AFAICT the distribution of that code is copyright infringement. IANAL. In contrast, your TiVO may get a software upgrade without your permission that will take your rights away from that point on, and there's very little you can do about it, other than unplugging it from the network to avoid the upgrade if it's not too late already. And because its a device that connects to their network - and TiVO isn't a telecommunications company - they have the right to upgrade and configure the software inside however they want. (In the US at least) But do they have the right to not pass this right on, under the GPL? A lot of them would probably have private modifications that would never be distributed - and under the GPLv2 it is clear that you can keep modifications private as long as you don't distribute them. Likewise with GPLv3. I can see this, but will a company see this? In what sense does the GPLv3 make this particular point any less obscure? True. But that doesn't save them from lawsuits trying to force them to obey the terms of the new revision even though they received the software under an earlier version. Nothing saves anyone from silly lawsuits. This one would likely be laughed out of court in no time. Anyone worried about this should also be concerned about their neighbor suing them for copyright infringment every time they set their stereo loud enough for the neighbors to listen and be annoyed. (Hint: only the copyright holder would stand a chance of winning such a lawsuit) (and don't try to argue that even though those modifications are truly private (to the company) they should be released anyway to comply with the spirit of the license. It is made clear that it isn't by the text of the license itself) How could you possibly come to the conclusion that forcing anyone to release private modifications would be in compliance with the spirit of the license? can != must I was trying to be sarcastic and inject a little humor here. Guess I should have used the old sarcasm tag :) Aah. I'm not sure I'd have understood it either. Why should I repeat Linus' explanation of the ways that GPLv3 violates the spirit of GPLv2? Don't worry about parrotting here, he hasn't provided that explanation yet ;-) Please give it a try. But he has. Whether you have accepted that his explanations are valid or not doesn't change the fact. His explanation is based on a reading of the license that doesn't match what its authors meant. I guess the authors know better what they meant the spirit of the license to be than someone else who studied it a lot but that until very recently couldn't even tell the spirit from the legal terms. And his interpretation is no less valid than that of anyone else. In fact, after a recent conversation with a couple of lawyers that I know, I can state that his interpretation isn't that far off from theirs. Interpretation as applied to the legal terms, yes. As for the spirit
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, the whole coercive approach is counter-productive. Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes restrictions, that's ok, but when others want to find ways to stop it, then it's not. *Now* I'm confused ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about it. When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have a right to modify that copy. Umm. I notice how you must have known how *idiotic* your response was, because you snipped away the part where I talked about Red Haty distributing CD-ROM's. In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), and you cannot modify that copy that you got. And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was quite obvious. See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo distribution? Yes. You see how TiVO is different? It is modifyable, and I actually receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't. You keep on harping on that modifyable, but no-where in the GPLv2 is that an issue. I claim that it *cannot* be an issue, since CD's are obviously ok. The 'passing on the rights you have' makes it an issue. You cannot use that as an argument that the GPLv3 didn't change things, Compare the preambles of v2 and v3 and you'll understand why the argument is sound, and not circular. Those people who have argued for using the BSD license, btw, argued so in the name of freedom. But individual freedom, rather than community freedom. Think local vs global optimization. If so, why the hell do you think _you_ are right? Because, like you, I'm always right, even though not everyone agrees with that assessment? ;-P :-D - do you admit that the GPLv3 is a new license that does new and different things? Yes, of course. The new legal terms are answers to new threats to the freedoms depicted in the preamble, that didn't exist or hadn't been thought of by the time GPLv2 was published. - do you admit that I chose the GPLv2, and have argued that I chose it because I understood what it said? Yes. - do you admit that authors have the right to choose their own licenses? Within the boundaries of ethics and morals, yes. - if you answered yes to all the above questions, HOW THE HELL can you call me confused, and argue against me when I say that the GPLv2 is a better license? It wasn't your choice. The thing is I'm not arguing that point. I'm disputing that there was a change in the spirit of the license between v2 and v3. Heck, a mere 48 hours ago you couldn't even tell the spirit from the legal terms. I still think v3 will serve better any Free Software community, because it will push away the abusers that contribute little, or turn them into cooperative or at least harmless participants, that further enable the active participation of their downstream users. This would enable wider participation under the same 'tit-for-tat' conditions that you attribute to GPLv2. It appears to me that the only significant point of contention remaining is the issue of Tivoization. If you feel so strongly about permitting Tivoization, even though it denies the freedoms that the original spirit of the license you chose says they are entitled to have, you can make this provision by means of an additional permission for that, on top of GPLv3, and be done with it. It really is that easy. Yes, indeed. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:59, Alexandre Oliva wrote: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. So if I am a sole author of a program and I chose to distribute it under GPL then you're not a licensee, you're a licensor, and these terms don't apply to you. Heh. When you change a GPLed program and pass your changes you are the licensor for the new code. You still have a right and license pieces of the code you wrote under different license but you do not pass that right to recepient of modified work. You are the author of the change, and you can license them however you like. Your change itself is not bound by the terms of the GPL, it is only if it is a derived work of the GPLed work. If your change is not a derived work, you're not bound by the terms of the GPL as far as the change is concerned, so the GPL has no say whatsoever as to how you must release it. If you choose the GPL, then you're a licensor, and the requirements to pass on all the rights you have do not apply. If it *is* a derived work, then you're constrained by the terms of the license, and you can only distribute it under the same license. You don't have a right to offer it under a different license in the first place, so you can't pass this right on. Derived work or not, when you combine that change with the program, then you're bound by the terms of the license, and then you cannot change the licensing terms of the whole program, so you can't pass this right on either. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have a right to modify that copy. But you get the TiVO corporations copy of the software? Yes. The customer gets the copy that TiVO stored in the hard disk in the device it sells. And it's that copy that the customer is entitled to modify because TiVO is still able to modify it. No, by this twisted logic Tivo *cannot* modify that particular copy any more than you can. They can modify *another* copy (just like you) and they can *replace* the copy in your device with the new version (unlike you). Again, replacing is one form of modification. What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your editor? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $ find -name *.c | xargs grep any later version | wc -l 3138 $ find -name *.c | wc -l 9482 How many of these don't mention version 2? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. but I think that the software license I choose should be about the software, and about giving back in kind. And the GPLv2 is _perfect_ for that. And the GPLv3 is horrible. Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements? Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'? (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've failed to elaborate on before) The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in, I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must respect others' freedoms as well. Is this the in kind you're talking about? Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even GPLv2? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Kevin Fox wrote: The hardware isn't directly covered by the GPL, correct. But, if they want to use the software on the hardware, they have to comply with the GPL. Only with the GPLv3. This is not true. The terms of the GPLv2 that say you can't impose further restrictions on the exercise of the freedoms apply to the software under GPLv2 and GPLv3 just the same way. Do you like licenses that force the licensee to give money back? So why do you like licenses that force the licensee to give access to hardware back? I don't know where the 'back' in the second question amounts to, but it definitely isn't about GPLv3. In fact, the GPL isn't about giving anything back. It's about passing on. So both requirements, as you phrased them, would be equally wrong. So let's change the question to turn them into forms of passing on: Do you like licenses that force the licensee to pass money on? Do you like licenses that force the licensee to pass on access to hardware? This is still bad. This is still not what the GPLv3 is about. There's no requirement to let the user go wild and do whatever she likes on the hardware. The only requirement is the one that was always there: to respect the freedoms of the users of the software, i.e., let them modify and share the software, not imposing any further restrictions, by whatever means. So the second question would be correctly phrased as Do you like licenses that force the licensee to pass on the right to modify the software in the hardware containing it? Or, reframing it: Do you like licenses that permit the licensee to deny others the right to modify the software in the hardware containing it? It's a form of extra compensation that the GPLv2 never had. No, sir, it's still respect for the freedoms. The same in kind contribution as always. The GPLv2 talks about giving access to the *source* code. It does. But that's not all. Even GPLv1 went further than that. Can people really not see the difference, and why I might think it's a fundamental difference, and why I might choose to say that the GPLv3 is a worse license? Since someone brought liberal (Original BSD, Modified BSD, MIT, etc) licenses into the picture, and you expressed dislike for them, let me pick that up for a moment. The license doesn't encode my fundamental beliefs of fairness. I think the BSD license encourages a everybody for himself mentality, and doesn't encourage people to work together, and to merge. And then you say what TiVO does is ok, saying: Oh, but you want to hack the hardware to accept it? That's a totally different issue. If so, buy a Neuros OSD box. Sounds a lot like the very everybody for himself attitude you dislike. So can you please explain to me how enabling TiVO to deny others the freedom that it received in kind, failing to keep with the in kind spirit of the GPL, encourage people to work together, and to merge? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Sure, if they make any changes or fixes to Linux. Other than that, only the same benefit that Microsoft get from Windows piracy - TiVo employees become familiar with Linux and are more likely to use it and maybe contribute more in another job later. Now, what if TiVO actually permitted all of its customers to make changes or fixes to Linux, and become familiar with it and become more likely to use it and maybe contribute more later? a) there's nothing that prevents a Tivo user from changing or fixing Linux completely outside of the Tivo But how about inside the TiVO, so as to use Linux and the rest of the GNU/Linux distro put in there for an even better DVR experience? Sure, this might still be accomplished on another hardware platform. But the TiVO already has all the hardware there, and you already have all the software ready to work on it. Except that you can't change it. You'd have to waste time and money just to get to the same status on another hardware platform. What do we gain? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandre Oliva wrote: But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free Software in it. No you're not...you're talking about being able to hack the software *and load it back onto the original hardware*. Yes. You wouldn't impose restrictions on modifying the software like that, now would you? Even though the GPL says you can't impose further restrictions on modification and distribution. It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that they're entitled to have. The software license controls the software. If the hardware has restrictions on it that limit what software it will run, then that is unrelated to the software license. As in, the license controls the software. If a patent creates restrictions that limit what you can do with the software, then that is unrelated to the software license. As in, the license controls the software. If a discriminatory contract limits what you can do with the software, then that is unrelated to the software license. As in, the license controls the software. If I send you the source code, but it happens to be protected by a key that only the hardware can decode, and it won't decode for you, then that is unrelated to the software license. Is that so, really? There is nothing stopping you from taking the code for the tivo, modifying it, distributing it, or even running it on other hardware. True. But TiVO is still imposing further restrictions on how I can modify the software stored in their device, while reserving that ability to itself. This is wrong. This is not in kind. This is not tit-for-tat. Tit-for-tat is: if they can, then I can too, and if I can't, then they can't either. Suppose I had some machine that will only run microsoft-signed binaries. Would it be at all related to any software license that this machine won't let me run linux? That would be an unfortunate machine to have, but if Linux or some other GPLed software was not shipped in it, then I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion. It's not about the hardware, it's about the software in it, and about passing on the freedoms related with it. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes restrictions, that's ok Sure. I think it's ok that Microsoft imposes restrictions too on the software they create. It's *their* choice. Last I looked, TiVO was not the author of Linux. Did you sell out or something? ;-P :-D So tell me, why do you think I'm confused about the GPLv3? I think you're confused about the spirit of the GPL, that applies equally to v1, v2 and v3. I think you're confused because you claim the GPL is tit-for-tat, that it encourages/requires (you haven't been consistent) contributions in kind, but the only contribution in kind is respect for the freedoms of others. But then, when measures are introduced to ensure compliance with this twisted tit-for-tat notion, you claim they're wrong, that they escape the spirit of the license. This is why I think you're confused. That said, it is possible that you disregarded the spirit of the GPL entirely, focused on some of the legal terms and decided that was something you wanted for your project. And that it models what you want for your project better than GPLv3 does, because GPLv3 takes the spirit that you disregarded even more seriously than GPLv2. I still fail to see why what it is in GPLv2 that makes it better to satisfy your intentions WRT Linux than GPLv3. I must assume that, when you say tit-for-tat, you mean something else, and not respect for others' freedoms. If you take the time to explain what it is, then perhaps it will become clear why you consider the GPLv2 a better license to achieve your goals, or perhaps it will show that you're indeed confused about what GPLv2 and GPLv3 mean. (a) Linus knows what he is doing, and isn't actually confused. I can't say that yet. Maybe after the points above are sufficiently explored I will be able to say that. (b) It was my right to use the license of my choice for a project that I started. No doubt about it. (c) I have the right to see the difference between the GPLv2 and v3, and think that the GPLv3 is the inferior license. You sure do have that right. Comprende? MY CHOICE. Not the FSF's. Not yours. Not anybody elses. Until you started accepting contributions from others, yes. BTW, in Portuguese the correct spelling would be compreende, with a double 'e'. Comprende is Spanish, and in Brazil, where I live, we speak Portuguese. But thanks for trying, that's appreciated ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu 14 Jun 2007 01:07, Alexandre Oliva pondered: then maybe the small company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing restrictions of modification on any software in the device, all the way from hardware-constrained output power to hardware-verified authorized configuration parameters. As a person pretty familiar with the hardware in these types of devices - this just isn't practical. I actually left out the most obvious one: store the program in ROM. Is that not practical? You're claiming that adding hardware locks and chains and bolts, implemented with help from the loader software, is simpler than just using ROM? Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the signing key away. This should be good for the highly-regulated areas you're talking about. And then, since you can no longer modify the program, you don't have to let the user do that any more. Problem solved. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: It's not that the hardware is deciding to impose restrictions on its own. It's the hardware distributor that is deciding to use the hardware to impose restrictions on the user. Seems like a violation of section 6 of GPLv2 to me. You *still* haven't figured out the difference between the software and a particular copy of the software, have you? I have. And so has GPLv2, look: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion What's your problem? Trying to get you to see what is so obvious to me. So let's look at that section 6 that you talk about, and quote the relevant parts, will we: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. and then let's look at Red Hat sending me a CD-ROM or a DVD. Now, Red Hat clearly *did* further restrict my rights as it pertains TO THAT COPY ON THE CD-ROM! I cannot change it! Waa waa waa! I'll sue your sorry ass off! Red Hat is not stopping you from making changes. The media is, and that's not something Red Hat can control. Compare this with the TiVO. TiVO *designs* the thing such that it can still make changes, but customers can't. That's the difference. TiVO is using hardware to impose further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein, and this violates section 6 of GPLv2. See the issue? You are continually making the mistake of thinking that the GPLv2 talks about individual copies of software. It does. You're making the mistake of thinking that it doens't. And even in the legal terms that you claimed to have understood so thoroughly. The rights granted are the rights to distribute and modify the software. More specifically, some of the rights are: copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work But by the software, the license is not talking about a particular *copy* of the software, it's talking about the software IN THE ABSTRACT. Please read it again. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:03:40 -0300, Alexandre Oliva said: On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a company sells you hardware that includes a ROM that contains GPL'ed software, are they in violation of the GPL if they don't include a ROM burner in the hardware? Or are ROM burners like compilers, where you have to supply your own? this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). Do they have to provide a ROM burner if the ROM is socketed rather than soldered into place? Of course not. They just can't impose restrictions on your obtaining a ROM burner and doing the work yourself. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), and you cannot modify that copy that you got. And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was quite obvious. The GPLv2 talks about specific rights, like the ability to make changes and distribute things, and says that you have to give downstream all those same rights. The spirit gives the intuition of passing on all the rights. The legal terms have to be more careful about that, to avoid the very situation you're debating, so they state you can't impose further restrictions on the exercise of the rights. Do you understand the difference? For example, for any code that I have full copyright over, I have rights that you DO NOT HAVE! No dispute about that, and this is irrelevant to this point. I've already responded and clarified this point 2 or 3 times in this thread. Do you need me to find a URL for you? It was in respose to Dmitri Torokhov. So if you want to argue that I should re-license, you should argue that the GPLv3 is better. And quite frankly, you haven't. In fact, I haven't even tried. So far, I've merely been trying to show that it still follows the same spirit, dispelling the muth that it doesn't, and trying to understand why you think GPLv2 is so much better, which I think is related with tit-for-tat and retribution in kind. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements? Do you need anything else? No, I'm quite happy that this is all. But if by the question you mean would you think the GPLv3 is fine without the new language in section 6 about the 'consumer devices', then the answer is that yes, I think that the current GPLv3 draft looks fine apart from that. Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional permission for Tivoization? Also, can you elaborate on what you mean about 'giving back in kind'? (I suspect this is related with the tit-for-tat reasoning, that you've failed to elaborate on before) I've *not* failed to elaborate on that before. Not at all. Just google for torvalds tit-for-tat and you'll see a lot of my previous postings. Trying to claim that this is somehow new is ludicrous. I didn't. But I've provided evidence that your prior musings on this topic were wrong. I wanted to give you an opportunity to review your position under this new light. I see you haven't changed it at all. Giving back in kind is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code. How hard is that to accept? Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the GPL says. Where do you think the GPL say that you get the source code back? I don't ask for money. I don't ask for sexual favors. I don't ask for access to the hardware you design and sell. I just ask for the thing I gave you: source code that I can use myself. See, that's not what the license says. The license says what you ask for is respect for other users' freedoms. Nothing whatsoever for you. Only for users. Freedom is in in kind payment, and it's not even a retribution, a payback: it's payforward, or paysideways. Do you understand why I find your reasoning hard to accept? And no, it's not a new concept. Neither is the fact that I've never agreed with the FSF's agenda about freedom (as defined by _them_ - I have a notion of freedom myself, and the FSF doesn't get to define it for me). We don't have to agree on our individual definitions of freedom. But we're talking about a specific license that assigns a specific meaning to the term freedoms, and that's all this is about. I don't call Linux Free Software. I haven't called it that for close to ten years! Because I think the term Open Source is a lot better. I can appreciate that you think it's better, but unfortunately it appears to be playing a significant role in confusing your interpretation of the GPL. The GPL is not just about making the source code visible, or even modifyable by others. It's about respecting others' freedoms. No matter how badly you prefer Open Source over Free Software, how badly you'd rather disregard the freedoms in the spirit and in the legal terms of the GPL, you chose a license designed to protect those freedoms, not only the ability to see and modify source code. The only thing the GPL demands is respect for others' freedoms, as in, I, the author, respect your freedoms, so you, the licensee, must respect others' freedoms as well. Is this the in kind you're talking about? Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even GPLv2? I just ask that you give the software back in a usable form. That's all I ask for. I'm afraid that's not what the GPLv2 says. There's no provision whatsoever about giving anything back. Not in the spirit, not in the legal terms. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:26:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: In the program you received under GPLv1. Hey, you said there was code under GPLv1.1 in the Linux tree. Then, there should be a copy of GPLv1.1 in there, otherwise AFAICT the distribution of that code is copyright infringement. IANAL. So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code? If it exists and it's 1.1-only, I believe it wouldn't, but IANAL. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF required copyright assignment to themselves in order to accept the changes from the developers. For many strategic projects, but not all of them. So the FSF owns the whole copyright and can change things whenever they want, to whatever license they want. This is not true. Have you ever read the copyright assignment contract? It very clearly constrains the ways the FSF can release the code. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote: And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of hardware throught the influence of their software. It's not. It's only working to ensure recipients of the Free Software can modify and share the software. What the FSF is trying to do is EVIL. I wouldn't go that far (although, in the heat of the moment I probably _have_ gone that far. Oops ;). :-) I literally think that the GPLv2 has worked so well exactly because you can strip it of its high-falutin' morality and the FSF Kool-Aid, and just see it as a tit-for-tat license. It allows everybody to see that the work they put in (into the _software_) is protected, and people cannot make improved versions of that software and distribute those improved versions without giving you the right back to use those improvements (to the _software_). Can you explain to me how it is that the Tivoization provisions (the only objection you have to GPLv3) conflict with this? (nevermind our disagreement as to whether tit-for-tat applies to either GPLv2 or GPLv3) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, consider non-derived work. I did, you snipped it out: If your change is not a derived work, you're not bound by the terms of the GPL as far as the change is concerned, so the GPL has no say whatsoever as to how you must release it. If you choose the GPL, then you're a licensor, and the requirements to pass on all the rights you have do not apply. Because I am distributing whole program I have to do it under GPL. However I still have the right to distribute just the portion that is written by me under whatevel license I want but you as a recepient of GPLed whole do not get this right. IOW I am not passing all the rights _I have_. I see what you mean. IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works. When your work is not a derived work, the GPL that applies to the rest of the program does not make you a licensee, and it only covers your work if you choose to license it that way. And then, you're the sole licensor of that piece of the work. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: They let you have the code and make changes to it, Not to the software installed in the device. What they do is like an author A who distributes a program to user B under a non-Free Software license, and to user C under a Free Software license. C passes the program on to B under the same license. Now B has two copies of the program. One is free, the other is not. Except that TiVO had no right to distribute the program under non-Free terms in the first place, because it was not the author, and the license it had explicitly said it couldn't impose further restrictions. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Giving back in kind is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source code. How hard is that to accept? Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the GPL says. What part of the word expect did you not understand? http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/24/246 It asks everybody - regardless of circumstance - for the same thing. It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to be given back to the common good. You can use the end result any way you want (and if you want to use it for bad things, be my guest), but we ask the same exact thing of everybody - give your modifications back. And whats your point here anyway? The the GPL doesn't do that. It encourages that. But what it asks for is respect for the freedoms it defends WRT the software licensed under it. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you are not entitled to dictate the hardware's design (or any other copyrighted work's design), Agreed. By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the license too: No, you're confusing two very different situations. In the case of TiVO, it's getting out of its way to make sure users can't enjoy one of the freedoms that the license says it ought to pass on. In the cases you mentioned, the company would have to get out of its way to put the other parties on equal grounds. The former is bad, it's against the spirit of the license, it's a further restriction. The latter would be nice to have, but it would be wrong to demand it. You're picturing the difference between blocking the way such that you can't get there, and actually taking you there. What the GPL seeks is just that you don't get in the way. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of situation is ok. Wow, do you remember the date when you first thought of this business model? And you are apparently totally unable to understand - or respect - that I actually made an informed decision that happens to be different from what you *wish* it were. While you insist in the nonsensical tit-for-tat argument and in kind retributions, I don't think I have much of a choice, because this is not what the GPL is about, this is not what it requires of licensees. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tivo *respected* the freedoms, and gave source back, and gave you all the same rights you had to Linux originally, and to their modifications. How stupid are you to not acknowledge that? Tivo limited their *hardware*, not the software. Have you ever wondered *why* it limited the hardware? Is it per chance such that I cannot modify the software that runs on the hardware? How is that respecting the freedoms? How is this not imposing further restrictions? And, more importantly, how is it that permitting this makes for *better* compliance with your tit-for-tat conceptions about the GPL? I.e., if Tivoization is the only issue that you think makes GPLv3 a worse license than GPLv2, and you like GPLv2 because of this tit-for-tat, surely you should be able to explain why Tivoization promotes this tit-for-tat notion better than GPLv3, right? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, with regard to TIVO, why are you saying that GPL shoudl affect their hardware I'm not. I'm just saying that TiVO, as a licensee of Linux, agreed that it wouldn't impose further restrictions on recipients of Linux on the exercise of the rights granted by the license. So, just like it couldn't use a patent to stop people from modifying or sharing Linux, it can't use the hardware to do that. And if they fail to supply portions of the functional source code in order to prevent modified versions to run, they are infringing the spirit and quite possibly the letter of the license. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional permission for Tivoization? No. I'm not stupid. The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions. So what? You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt to remove them, and you'll keep TiVO happy. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: I see what you mean. IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works. There *are* lawyers who have said that what Tivo did was legal. What I wrote above had ZERO to do with TiVO. Please re-read the message you responded to, and the two previous messages in that sub-thread for the context you snipped out. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With GPLv2 and prior there was a simple guarantee that every Licensee had exactly the same rights. With GPLv3 you are forcing your ethics and morals on people - and isn't this exactly what the Roman Catholic church did during the Spanish Inquisition? I fail to see the distinction you're making between GPLv2 and GPLv3. AFAICT, with GPLv3, there still is a simple guarantee that every licensee has exactly the same rights. Sure, GPLv3 follows the spirit of the GPLs more strictly than GPLv2 possibly could. How is that forcing ethics and morals any more than GPLv2 was? Ah, but I never said I had a GPLv1 program. I thought you had a copy of Linux and, per what you'd said before, there was GPLv1 code in it. I was just trying to make it easy for you. If GPLv1 is still valid and available I should be able to find a copy of it *RIGHT* *NOW* to license a new project if I want to use GPLv1 as its license. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying-1.0.html And because its a device that connects to their network - and TiVO isn't a telecommunications company - they have the right to upgrade and configure the software inside however they want. (In the US at least) But do they have the right to not pass this right on, under the GPL? Yes, they do. It isn't a right they have as copyright holders - in fact, it isn't a part of their rights under the copyright at all. It's a part of their rights as the owners of the network. How about the no further restrictions bit? Never claimed it was less obscure, just that you've usually got a board-room filled with middle-aged men that might have problems agreeing that it is a clear-cut case. Yes, but the fact that it would cost money to get the suit dropped is a problem. Again, how are these arguments against GPLv3? They apply equally to any other license, including GPLv2. Interpretation as applied to the legal terms, yes. As for the spirit of the license, the authors ought to know better than anyone else what they meant. Sure, other interpretations might lead to different understandings as to what the readers *think* it means, but that doesn't change what it was *intended* to mean. Doesn't matter what the author intended it to mean - at all. What matters is how its interpreted when/if it shows up in court. You're talking about the legal terms. The spirit of the license is a very different matter. It can guide the interpretation of the legal terms, but the author is at a better position than anyone else to know what he meant. If you replace a component in the hardware, are you still required to provide support or offer warranty? Why should this be different just because it's a software component? Artificial distinctions in the law Well, then, lock down the software. Make it irreplaceable, even by yourself. Problem solved. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: somewhat sarcastic And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or other GPL'd software installed and place limits such that only people that have purchased that hardware have access to the modified source running on the device are following the letter, and the spirit, of the GPL. WAIT, WAIT, THAT'S... :-) Before you start yelling I'm wrong, think about it this way: they make the source available to the people that they've given binary versions to, and there is nothing stopping one of those people from making the source available to the rest of the world. The *only* in your sentence betrayed you. If they place the limits such that nobody else can access the sources, they're in violation of the license. If they merely refrain from distributing the sources to others, but still enable the recipients to do so, this is not a violation of the license. But then IANAL. *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to everyone - just to those that get the binaries. Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus' theory of tit-for-tat falls apart. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
