Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754802AbXFNIiT (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:38:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752813AbXFNIiM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:38:12 -0400 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:56949 "EHLO ns.firmix.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752459AbXFNIiL (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:38:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Lennart Sorensen , Greg KH , debian developer , "david@lang.hm" , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: References: <200706132042.02728.dhazelton@enter.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Firmix Software GmbH Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:37:55 +0200 Message-Id: <1181810275.14938.16.camel@tara.firmix.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Firmix-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on ns.firmix.at X-Firmix-Spam-Score: -1.131 () AWL X-Firmix-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.131 required=5 X-Spam-Score: -1.131 () AWL X-Firmix-Envelope-From: X-Firmix-Envelope-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1970 Lines: 48 On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on > > their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BTW as soon as I bought that thing, it is *my* hardware and no longer *theirs* (whoever "theirs" was). > > covered by the GPL. > > Indeed, TiVO has this legal right. But then they must not use Do they? At least in .at, it is usually impossible to (legally) limit the rights of the *owner* a (tangible) thing (and if I bought it, I *am* the owner and no one else) - even if you put it in the sales contract since this is discussion about/within sales law. One usual example is "you buy a car and neither the car producer nor the (re)seller can restrict the brands of the tires you may use or the brand of the fuel etc.". And the same holds for pretty much everything. No one can forbid you to open a TV set and fix it (or let it fix by whoever I choose to). Yes, there are exceptions in several laws for specific things (e.g. for really dangerous ones like airbags in cars) but in general, you are allowed to do almost anything (including the simple destruction of it). And yes, if you *rent* the thing, you are not the owner and this is a totally different thing. > software under the GPLv3 in it. And, arguably, they must not use > software under the GPLv2 either. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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/