From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I93mv-0006Hk-KO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:53:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6CIqJwI012996; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:52:19 GMT Received: from canuck.infradead.org (canuck.infradead.org [209.217.80.40]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6CIoElc010548 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:50:14 GMT Received: from dsl093-040-174.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.40.174] helo=localhost) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1I93jx-0005sc-6k for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:50:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:43:47 -0700 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3. Message-ID: <20070712184347.GA23203@kroah.com> References: <1183899969.6634.1.camel@localhost> <20070708164657.4edd8378@localhost> <20070709163914.GB16617@kroah.com> <20070709210720.4583dd06@localhost> <20070709212456.GA22067@kroah.com> <20070710191035.2dfcfa98@localhost> <20070710181130.GA30117@kroah.com> <4693EE1A.1020007@lacqui.com> <20070710204929.GA1356@kroah.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Archives-Salt: 83525184-c9f0-4893-9417-f0211a53406a X-Archives-Hash: 0a54aba5af271119a25843a2974b458e On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the > > case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told > > Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.) > > > Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms. > > > So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change > > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections. > > > I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes, > including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at the > moment, we effectively have no choice. That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought up about the whole "tivo" issue and the Linux kernel. Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel). thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list