Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 13:08 +0100, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
However, once they comply with the distribution requirements,
they're free to do whatever they want with the resulting OS in their
printer ... including checking for only HP authorised ink
cartridges. You can take exception to this check and not buy the
resulting printer, but you can't tell them not to do the check
without telling them how they should be using the embedded platform.

I don't see where the GPLv3 forbids such checks. Which section are
you thinking of? In my understanding, it says only that HP must give
users the keys to install modified software. From section 1 (of the
July draft):

This was an illustration of the difference between use and distribution.
I don't claim GPLv3 limits these activities; I was just using the
example I was given.

The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or
authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified
versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of
use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the
same range of circumstances.

So the user, having the keys, can remove the cartridge check. HP
might not like it and may choose not to distribute GPLv3 software with
the printer, but that's a separate story.

Under GPLv3, yes. That's one of the fulcrums of the argument. As one
of the copyright holders, I don't want to get into the business of
dictating terms for uses to which linux (or other open source software)
is put. I fundamentally don't want to require in the copyright licence
that device manufacturers using embedded linux have to give me the key.
I'd love to persuade them why modifiable hardware is a good thing
(linksys WRT54GL) and give them market reasons for allowing it. But I
don't want to compel them. The pragmatic reason is that to impose
compulsion I have to forsee all the end uses (this is why we get
drafting issues with the GPLv3). However, the moral reason is that I
believe this type of compulsion to be wrong in principle: it acts as a
damper on innovation if everyone has to keep looking over their shoulder
and considering what my wishes might be in software they use.
Fundamentally, I want people to do things I never even dreamed of with
my software.

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
    ... including checking for only HP authorised ink ... cartridges. ... users the keys to install modified software. ... versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 ... (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better ... My code is going to stay GPLv2 as the v3 license is horrible for kernel ... Even the people that feel that v2 says you need to give up the keys ...
    (Linux-Kernel)