Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 13:19:21 EST
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Greaves wrote:
> Surely it's more:
> bad == go away and don't use future improvements to our software anymore
Well, with the understanding that I don't think that what Tivo did was bad
in the first place, let me tackle that question *anyway*.
The answer is: Not necessarily.
Some people can be "bad" for the community. They may simply be disruptive
and not productive at all. They may troll the mailing lists without
actually ever doing something good, or they may do other "bad" things.
In fact, let's make it *very* specific: let's say that the bad person is a
cracker, and specializes in finding security holes, and writing exploits
for them, and selling those exploits to spammers.
Most of us might agree that that is a "bad" person for the community, no?
Now, by your own logic, let's look at what that means for the license.
Should we write into our copyright license that you cannot try to find
security holes? Would that be a good addition to the GPLv2?
Now, I stated that in a way where the answer is obvious: that would be a
*horrible* addition to the GPLv2. I think everybody can agree on that. It
would be really stupid to say "you cannot look for security holes" just
because *some* people who do it are bad.
Now, think about that for a moment, and then go back to your question
about whether Tivo is bad for the community, and whether being bad for the
community should mean that the license should be written to say "go away
and don't use future improvements to our software".
See where I'm trying to take you?
I think that even people who *do* think that what Tivo did was "bad",
should think very deeply about the issue whether you should try to lock
out "bad uses" in your license. Yes, the answer may be "yes, you should".
But I'm arguing that the answer _may_ also be: "No, you shouldn't, becasue
it turns out that you might lock out _good_ people too".
So in my cracker/spammer example, by trying to lock out the bad people,
the obvious (and _stupid_ - don't get me wrong, I'm not at *all*
suggesting anything like that should ever be done) license addition of
"don't expose security problems" actually just causes more problems than
it solves (if it solves anything at all - really bad people don't actually
tend to even care about the license!).
It makes it harder for *valid* uses of security problem discovery. It
makes it potentially illegal to try to do security research. And don't
tell me stupid licenses and laws like that don't happen: people really
*do* make these kinds of shortsighted decisions, to "protect" themselves
from bad people.
I personally think that the same is true of the GPLv3 anti-tivoization
clauses. Even if you don't like Tivo, you may well recognize that there
are lots of *other* reasons for lock-down. Maybe you hate Tivo, and the
RIAA and the MPAA. Fine. What about the FCC? Or what about secure
terminals? What about any number of *other* reasons to use validated
Now, I cannot speak for Alan Cox (he can speak damn well for himself), but
I think Alan is an example of a person who actually really detests what
Tivo did. But I also am pretty sure that he's also quite smart enough to
see that the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clauses may stop *other* uses that he
doesn't dislike and he doesn't think are "wrong", and even though he
dislikes what Tivo does, as far as I know, I think his stance on the GPLv3
is that it's actually wrong for Linux.
See? You don't actually have to like Tivo to see downsides to trying to
stop them. Because these kinds of things have consequences *outside* of
just stopping Tivo.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/