On 10/17/06, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:57:43AM +0530, Jinesh K J wrote: > On 10/17/06, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:08:56AM +0530, Jinesh K J wrote: > >> On 10/15/06, Jakko Pastuchio <jakkop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >hi all, > >> > > >> >can someone please explain me what's going to change in GPLv3 ? > >> http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/06/08/02/2210213.shtml?tid=147 > >> > >> >why do most of kernel developers resent it ? > >> no idea! may be they are not very good in understanding licenses. see > >> http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/ > > > >Um, yeah, sure, we don't know anything about licenses, despite working > >with them for years, interacting with lawyers, and convincing companies > >about different aspects of the stuff. > > > >If you believe that, then why would you ever trust any of us for > >anything as "simple" as doing the code portion of the kernel... > I trust kernel developers as far as the kernel development is > concerned - we have a fair game. The very essence of GPL is violated > by the process of 'Tivoization' - this can never be justified. Can you point out in the license of the GPL where this is "violated"?
This is exactly the problem here - even though the license is not violated legally, its purpose certainly is. GPL was made to make sure that the end user gets the same rights as the person who developed the software - the right to make changes to the source code as he wishes and to run it, to propagate it along with the same rights. It was the aim of FSF and ultimately the GPL to make sure that this freedom is granted to all the GPL users. Right now the GPL v2 is in an helpless situation in guaranteeing this freedom for its admirers under such(Tivo) situations.
> Can you imagine a situation in which you will be able to use your > computer only by the pre-compiled linux kernel provided by intel or > AMD or so... It would be terrible - at least for me. Sure, it will never happen, for your desktop computer, the company will go out of business. That's just a straw-man here.
So you still feel that it should not happen to your desktop computer <-> just because that it won't ever happen to your system doesn't pull you back from raising your voices against any attempt to do this injustice towards users of other devices - whether its a supercomputer or a mini mp3 player.
The main point is that RMS feels that the Tivo issue is big enough that the GPL should be changed to prevent that from ever happening in the future.
So, don't you want to?
As written, v3 is stating that the only program that would fall under this clause would be an operating system's kernel. And since a lot of the kernel developers have publically stated that it is acceptable to use Linux in such a situation (bootloader only running signed kernels), then you can imagine why us kernel developers would feel a little defensive.
Able to run only signed kernels - Again this is clearly a violation of freedom - I agree. But why 'feel a little defensive'?
So we wrote up a little whitepaper about it. If you wish to discuss any of the specific points in that paper, please feel free to do so. Just random attacks against us because you might feel that we somehow don't know what we are talking about, will not get you anywhere.
My sincere apologies for making such a comment :'( - please accept it and let us make this discussion a fruitful one. Regards, Jinesh. -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
