Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753517AbXFNCro (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:47:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751921AbXFNCrh (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:47:37 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:60372 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751813AbXFNCrg (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:47:36 -0400 To: Chris Adams Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <20070614013214.GA1124293@hiwaay.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:46:50 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070614013214.GA1124293@hiwaay.net> (Chris Adams's message of "Wed\, 13 Jun 2007 20\:32\:14 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2374 Lines: 59 On Jun 13, 2007, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva said: >> if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] >> you must give the recipients all the rights that you have >> So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. >> TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. >> It doesn't give the recipients the same right. > Sure it does; you received a program (the kernel) and you can modify it. If I take the software I received, build it and install it on the same hardware, it won't run. Something is missing in the source code I received, I guess.. If I make changes to the source code, build it, and install it on that same computer, it won't run. How is that being able to modify *that* copy of the program? If TiVo makes the same changes, builds tehm, and installs it on my computer, it will run just fine. How are they passing on the right they had to me? > You also received hardware; they don't support modification of that. They don't have to support them. They don't have to help me if it breaks. But if they can do it and I can't, they're failing to comply with the spirit of the GPL. > Nowhere in the license does it say they have to, because the license > only covers the program. They can't distribute the program while imposing restrictions on modification not present in the software license itself. > Or are you claiming that putting software on hardware makes the result a > derivative work? I think it falls under the "mere aggregation" clause. I tend to agree, in this particular case, but IANAL. I don't rule out derivative works in future attempts to find loopholes in the GPL. > What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM Then they wouldn't have the ability to change it any more, so there wouldn't be such a right to pass on to the users. -- 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 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/