On Jun 21, 2007, [email protected] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> Apparently the only restrictions ever permitted are the ones the FSF
> thinks of.
Where does this nonsensical idea come from? How does it follow that,
from FSF offering a licensing option to authors, you conclude that
nobody could ever establish whatever other restrictions they liked?
> So really what the GPL v3 wants to have is to make sure that the user
> can reproduce from the sources a bit for bit identical copy of the
> binaries?
No, this is not enough to enable someone to adapt the software to
one's own needs.
> Too bad compilers that put time stamps and such into the
> binary would make that imposible.
This would be the copyright author imposing such a restriction, not
the software distributor.
> I don't think there is any way that can be written into the GPL that
> can prevent all loop holes for how to make signed binaries.
Which is one possible reason to explain why the FSF switched to the
'Installation Information' approach.
> There doesn't have to be an agreement. The software company could just
> release specs for a hardware design and let others freely go and build
> them from that design.
Aah, so the software company has designed a mechanism to restrict
users' freedoms, and is just leaving it up to third parties to
complete the implementation? I think these design documents could be
used in a court to prove intent to impose restrictions on the users,
but IANAL.
>> However, if there's no such agreement, if the copyright holder has no
>> copyright claims over the hardware or works shipped in it, there's
>> nothing the copyright holder can do about it, and that's probably how
>> it should be, since a copyright license (!= contract) can't possibly
>> prohibit people from creating hardware limited in function, it can
>> only tell people that, in order for them to have permission to modify
>> or distribute the covered work, they must abide by certain conditions.
>> And if they don't want to abide by the conditions, and they don't
>> manage to obtain a license from the copyright holders that doesn't
>> impose conditions they can't accept, they just can't modify or
>> distribute the work.
> But if the hardware ships with only code that simply waits for the user
> to provide some code for it to isntall (which has to be signed in a way
> the hardware likes), then the hardware has nothing to do with the
> license of the software.
Correct. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?
> I hope no one does this, but I still don't see how the GPLv3 draft deals
> with this case, or even how it could deal with it.
It doesn't, and it probably shouldn't.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
