On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > > With the GPLv2, you need to give your software modifications back, but > > the > ^^^^ BZZT! > > GPLv2 never *ever* makes any technical limitations on the end result. > > Actually, just think of how many times you've heard the argument "I > can't give you the source code for this driver/firmware/etc under the > GPLv2 because the law says so."
Sorry to tell you this, but anyone that makes a modification to GPLv2 covered code and distributes that modification is bound by the license. If a law makes following the license illegal, then they can't use any rights granted by the license. They are breaking the law by refusing to follow the license. <snip> > > The GPLv2 requires that you give source code out. > ^^^^^^^^ BZZT ;-) > > But if you want to make your hardware in a way that it only runs > > signed versions, because of some reason like an FCC rule, or banking > > rule, or just because you damn well want, the GPLv2 doesn't stop > > that. > > And then, the user is stopped from making appropriate technical > decisions. You marked the "requires" as an error. Technically it is. Practically, however, it is rare for a modification to not fall under the "distribution" part of the license, making the "release the source" requirement active almost all the time. <snip> > > b) I think you're simply wrong in your math. I think more people > > like the middle-ground and not-frothing-at-the-mouth spirit of "open > > source" over the religious dogma of "free software". > > It looks like the math you're talking about is in no way related with > anything I've argued about. You seem to be thinking about the number > of people who claim to be on the "free software" or "open source" > sides, but I can't fathom in what way this is related with whether you > get more or less contributions from users as a consequence of users' > being permitted to tinker with the free software in their own devices. "More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More Contributions" That equation is very simple to understand - claiming its wrong is impossible. <snip> > > See? Those are three totally different reasons why I think the GPLv2 is > > the right license for me, and for the kernel. > > Ok, the only one that stands is the moral reason. Apparently because you can't admit that a good reason *IS* a good reason when it conflicts with your belief that the FSF is correct. (The same as the "Science can't be right because it conflicts with the bible" I hear from all kinds of Xtians these days) DRH PS: I know I've said I'm done with this conversation, but this is like a bad habit. I just couldn't help myself. -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
