Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:48:27 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Message-ID: <20070614024827.3d65f629@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <20070614013214.GA1124293@hiwaay.net>
References: <fa.khBgzvPDXYj45cntZBDPf6OM0jQ@ifi.uio.no>
	<fa.yLrgAnyZNUTaQtIdBjBq6aFGXU8@ifi.uio.no>
	<fa.OeLmE9apDSUc1Jj/3NNi3Oh5dxg@ifi.uio.no>
	<fa.81ogjXw6CW1aVETJQcz/2q97Mlw@ifi.uio.no>
	<fa.1pq8pRNsm/jhYV6tXEtGFJB8M+0@ifi.uio.no>
	<20070614013214.GA1124293@hiwaay.net>
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 758
Lines: 17

> What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a
> flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)?  Would that also
> violate the "spirit" of the GPL?  Must any device that wishes to include
> GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code
> (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)?

This is an area the GPLv3 tries to clarify and for good reason. 

Of course these days in the US someone would probably sue arguing that a
ROM is protection scheme ;)

Alan
-
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/