Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753517AbXFNCwr (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:52:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752033AbXFNCwk (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:52:40 -0400 Received: from mail.lmcg.wisc.edu ([144.92.101.145]:36983 "EHLO mail.lmcg.wisc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751983AbXFNCwk (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:52:40 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1786 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:52:39 EDT Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:22:50 -0500 From: Daniel Forrest To: Alan Cox Cc: Chris Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Message-ID: <20070613212250.A21801@yoda.lmcg.wisc.edu> Reply-To: Daniel Forrest References: <20070614013214.GA1124293@hiwaay.net> <20070614025248.6e0f72f0@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20070614025248.6e0f72f0@the-village.bc.nu>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:52:48AM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1424 Lines: 38 On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:52:48AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > As a PS to the GPL3 comment here is the basic difference > > ROM - I can't modify the code on the device > The creator can't modify the code further on the device > > Tivo - I can't modify the code on the device > The owner can modify the code > > One is an implicit limitation of the hardware (just like I can't run > openoffice on a 4MB PC even though the license gives me the right to > try), the other is an artificial restriction. > > One case is witholding freedom in the GPL sense by one party while > keeping it themselves, the other is a limitation of the system > inevitably imposed on everyone. I've been following this discussion and I find this interesting. Consider these two cases: 1.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they replace the ROM, and ship it back to me. 2.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they load new code into it, and ship it back to me. How do these two differ? Or is it now just a question of the ROM being in a socket? I can't see how the technicalities of how the hardware is constructed can change the legality of the software. -- Dan - 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/