Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757578AbXFMXqb (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:46:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754865AbXFMXqW (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:46:22 -0400 Received: from dhazelton.dsl.enter.net ([216.193.185.50]:50712 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754532AbXFMXqV (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:46:21 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Alexandre Oliva Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:46:15 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706131946.15714.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2338 Lines: 47 On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because > >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The > >> > fact > >> > >> Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal > >> interpretation. > > > > Well, even the FSF lawyers did, > > Or rather they didn't think an attempt to enforce that in the US would > prevail (or so I'm told). That's not saying what TiVo did was right, > and that's not saying that what TiVo did was permitted by the license. > Only courts of law can do that. Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did is entirely legal - they fully complied with the GPLv2. Note that what they *DON'T* allow people to do is run whatever version of whatever software they want on their hardware. They have that right - its the "Free Software Foundation" and the GPL - regardless of version - is a *SOFTWARE* license. TiVO never stopped people from copying, modifying or distributing the code - what they did was say "The code is GPL'd, the hardware is restricted" - ie: "You can do what you want with the code, but you can only run compiled version of it that we provide on our hardware". Why is that legal? Because TiVO produces the hardware and sells it to you with a certain *LICENSE* - because it does contain hardware covered under any number of patents. That license grants you the right to use the patents - in this case algorithms - provided you comply with the terms of the license. (Just like the GPL gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute GPL'd code as long as you comply with its terms) If you believe otherwise then you are sadly mistaken. Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe. DRH PS: Looking at your .sig I guess maybe you can't do that without getting kicked out of the FSF-LA -- 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/