|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Simon Oosthoek <simon.oosthoek-AT-ti-wmc.nl>|
|| ||Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders|
|| ||Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:39:25 -0500 (EST)|
|| ||"linux-os \\(Dick Johnson\\)" <linux-os-AT-analogic.com>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4-AT-mac.com>,
Marc Perkel <marc-AT-perkel.com>,
"Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey-AT-wolfmountaingroup.com>,
Patrick McLean <pmclean-AT-cs.ubishops.ca>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger-AT-osdl.org>,
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of the current draft. I
> assume you're referring to this part:
> [ snipped ]
> I'd interpret that as forcing people who try to hide their code or make it
> difficult to get at the source code to not be able to do that.
IF that is the legal interpretation, then yes, I'd agree with you. And no,
I'm not a lawyer. However, the way I read it, it's not about just not
being able to hide the object code - it's fundamentally about being able
to replace and run the object code.
I may indeed be reading it wrong, but I don't think I am. It explicitly
says "install and/or execute".
So I think it says that if I have a private signing key that "enables" the
kernel on some hardware of mine, GPLv3 requires that private key to be
made available for that hardware. Note how that is tied to the _hardware_
(or platform - usualyl the checking would be done by firmware, of course),
not the actual source code of the program.
And that's really what I don't like. I believe that a software license
should cover the software it licenses, not how it is used or abused - even
if you happen to disagree with certain types of abuse.
I believe that hardware that limits what their users can do will die just
becuase being user-unfriendly is not a way to do successful business. Yes,
I'm a damned blue-eyed optimist, but I'd rather be blue-eyed than consider
all uses of security technology to necessarily always be bad.
to post comments)