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

[Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>]

Le mardi 19 juin 2007 à 10:50 -0700, David Schwartz a écrit :
> > > The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software
> > > onto hardware
> > > where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no,
> > > you may not
> > > modify the software running on this hardware".
> 
> > Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually
> > supported your opinion. It's still an obvious alien insert.
> 
> It's simply shorter than saying "owners of the right or ability to decide
> what software runs on that hardware".

Right is not the same thing as ability. You have a technical ability
which has been converted in a "right" which in turn is used as argument
to reject GPLv3.

But did the original conversion happened with the approval of everyone
having rights to the result? I think not.

All the "GPLv2 didn't think of DRM therefore DRM is GPLv2-protected"
arguments make me sick. If tomorrow Ford starts mass+producing flying
saucers will they be exempt from traffic regulations because current
traffic regulations only consider cars? I think not. Yet the same
argument is the core of most GPL v3 objections we've seen in this
thread.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=