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


* Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

the new language it contains. It has taken almost 15 years for "Free
Software" to make a dent in the market, and, IMHO, a lot of that is both
Linux and the "holes" in GPLv2.

You appear terminally confused. The purpose of the GPL as defined by
its authors is not commercial success, world domination or making
zillions of dollars - it is keeping the software protected by that
license "free" in terms of liberty as measured against the set of
freedoms to run/modify/etc they discuss in the licence document.

The fact this is a good license for making zillions of dollars,
producing good software and the like is either incidental or a logical
result of the protection of freedoms depending upon which views you
believe.

that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral
boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF seems to
believe "nowhere, anything that copyright law allows us to achieve our
goals is a fair game" - and the GPLv3 shows that belief. I dont
subscribe to that view. 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. I.e. the information we produce
is covered by the rules of the GPL. It might be used in ways
inconvenient to us, it might be put on hardware we dont like (be that a
Tivo, a landmine or an abortion instrument) but that does not change the
fundamental fact: it's outside the _moral scope_ of our power. Whether
some jurisdictions allow the control of _other_ information via our
information is immaterial. If a jurisdiction allows the control of
hardware that is associated with our software, so what? If a
jurisdiction allows the controlling of various aspects of movie theaters
that happen to play copyrighted movies, does it make it morally right?

Ingo
-
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: Fujitsu support - need help - Netcobol for windows and licensed controls.
    ... Power COBOL V7, 3rd party OCX control, properly licensed. ... as it is basically distibuiting the development license. ... development license key, while the "License.dat" file seems to be the deployment ... IClassFactory and IClassFactory2 are *interfaces* ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Fujitsu support - need help - Netcobol for windows and licensed controls.
    ... Power COBOL V7, 3rd party OCX control, properly licensed. ... as it is basically distibuiting the development license. ... is down to the third party supplier to provide a run time license file (or ... It is up to the container to see if it ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • [very long report] my theory and practical tests
    ... I then went on and at 18 I got my car license, ... easy if you are familiar with clutch and gears on a bike, ... Shoulder checks and low speed control: ... *rear brake only* after the midpoint because the ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • OFF LIST:Re: GPL encumbrance problems
    ... It's like seeing some whiz-bang control you might like to use if you're ... There>IS< a 'Gift Debt' that comes from using opensource, which according to my perspectives is the imperative to 'pass it forward'. ... That's a no brainer, I don't need to absorb all the money there is in circulation, unlike someone I could name. ... He believes that one should only sell copies, not license ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Drunk
    ... I mean, maybe there is a jurisdiction with both, but I don't know. ... The evidence required to convict, or contest conviction, varies among ... if I put drving care and control I get Canadian ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)