Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:51:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@xxxxxxxxx> 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?

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.

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.

Hrm... Perhaps.

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.

As much as the US "Declaration of Independence" and other sources want people
to believe otherwise there is no such thing as "inalienable rights"
or "inalienable freedoms". In this case I have been unable to find
this "inalienable freedom" to run custom versions of software "on the same
machine" that you received the original copy on anywhere before the GPLv3 -
and even then it isn't explicitly clear. There is no restriction on your
right to modify, copy, distribute or run the software as provided by versions
of the GPL prior to version 3. 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? (After all, the FSF has have 20+
years to mention it)

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.

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 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)

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?

"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.

Point. But once again - would a company pay attention to that fact?

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.

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.

(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 :)

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.

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.

Then you're lucky. I've had a lot of people say something similar to the
following: "Oh, I've heard about that. So which version of the GNU-Linux
kernel are you running?"

Never claimed otherwise. The problem is that using a composite name like
that *does* confuse a hell of a lot of people.

Pronouncing the '+' or '/' helps a lot. GNU plus Linux makes a lot of
sense, and so does GNU on Linux.

Yes, it does. While pronouncing the '/' or '+' sounds a bit odd it does get
the point across that it's the GNU userspace running on top of the Linux
kernel. (as does "GNU on Linux")

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?

And so is every game console. But until the original XBox was released
nobody tried using one as a "General Purpose" machine. The TiVO wasn't
designed as a general purpose machine - it was designed for a specific
purpose. That the *easiest* design to produce uses a bunch of general
purpose components is an economic choice, nothing else.

So, if I put together a general-purpose computer, a general-purpose
operating system, adding a label "not a general-purpose computer" is
enough to make it so, just so that I can escape the obligations to
respect users' freedoms?

I will not, however, argue about this anymore.

Fair enough.

Let me quote Linus here:

But I think the whole thing is totally misguided, because the fact is,
the GPLv2 doesn't talk about "in place" or "on the same hardware".

In other words, GPLv3 is breaking with its predecessor - it's adding a
requirement that doesn't exist in previous versions.

No dispute about this. The requirements are being added to the legal
terms, precisely such that they better reflect the spirit, under the
light of the new threats that appeared since GPLv2 was published.

But the new requirements do abide by the same spirit, and that was a
promise the FSF made WRT revisions of the GPL.

As I've stated before - I can find nothing in the history of the GPL or the
FSF that makes the "on the same hardware" requirement clear and part of
the "spirit" of "Free Software". The closest anything comes is the "printer
driver" that was the (in)famous "last straw" for RMS and caused him to create
the FSF and the GNU Project.

*AND* it's dictating terms for *HARDWARE* when it isn't a hardware
license.

Only in as much as you try to use the hardware as means to disrespect
the spirit of the license and escape from the obligation to respect
users' freedoms.

Shouldn't matter. As I've repeated quite a bit I cannot find a single mention
that "on the same hardware" has been a goal of the FSF or part of
the "spirit" of the GPL at any point before the drafting of GPLv3.

If I release software under the GPL and somebody modifies it to run
on a different hardware platform I'll be happy, even if they don't
send me a patchset for the new version.

Yup. See the bit about GPL not being tit-for-tat.

If I create a piece of hardware and run Linux on it, but have it
locked to a specific version or versions from a specific source (ie:
me) and release it to the public, I *WILL* release the version of
Linux I'm running on it.

Good.

What I won't do is release whatever tools and such that are needed to
make the hardware run a different version of the kernel. Why? Because:
the hardware was designed so that a specific version of the kernel runs
without problems, there is hardware that is very picky and running a
customized kernel could cause that hardware to fail, etc...

Why do you care? It's no longer your hardware, it's theirs.

Legal requirements in some countries that require manufacturers to provide
support for their product for a period of time after it has been purchased.

Why would you refrain from providing information to others such that
they *could* make the software do what *they* want in their hardware
that they got from you?

See above.

If you let them change it and they break it, they get to keep all the
pieces. Your job is done. Why get out of your way to stop them from
making the best out of *their* hardware?

*thinks* Okay - looks like I had a thinko there. Arguments on this subject
(ie: the theoretical hardware) are withdrawn and the point is conceded.

DRH

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... wasn't getting the same performance under Linux - which rather surprised me. ... As has been noted in their TOS and the licenses for the hardware from the ... concerned that the license will change under them in such a way that even ... Linux is the kernel. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... the GPL software in the device, it seems like a license violation to ... This would not only change the spirit of the license, ... Referring to Linux as GNU/Linux would be wrong, ... Only in as much as you try to use the hardware as means to disrespect ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... had problems with hardware support and getting a new version of the BSD ... new project if I want to use GPLv1 as its license. ... comply with the "spirit" of the license. ... And his interpretation is no less valid than that of anyone else. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... I'm not talking about the license. ... I got into this debate in response to this reference: ... spirit to the present version". ... complain that the FSF is trying to *force* anyone to rename Linux. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. ... The fact that they maintained some control of the *hardware* (and some ... Your reading of the license doesn't _work_. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
Loading