Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756530AbXFNXOU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:14:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753110AbXFNXOM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:14:12 -0400 Received: from mail-03.jhb.wbs.co.za ([196.2.97.2]:61622 "EHLO mail-03.jhb.wbs.co.za" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751159AbXFNXOL (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:14:11 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAMZocUbEHh/Rh2dsb2JhbACPQAEBAQgOLA From: Bongani Hlope To: Alexandre Oliva Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:58:23 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Lennart Sorensen , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , "david@lang.hm" , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu References: <20070614175305.GI10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706150058.24324.bonganilinux@mweb.co.za> X-Original-Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1723 Lines: 40 On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:32:08 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: > > They let you have the code and make changes to it, > > Not to the software installed in the device. So now you want access to all the software that is installed in their device? Could you explain that please? You do have access to the GPL code that they used. If you buy one of Google's Search Appliance, are you expecting to allow you to make changes to the software that is installed on that device? > > What they do is like an author A who distributes a program to user B > under a non-Free Software license, and to user C under a Free Software > license. > > C passes the program on to B under the same license. Now B has two > copies of the program. One is free, the other is not. > > Except that TiVO had no right to distribute the program under non-Free > terms in the first place, because it was not the author, and the > license it had explicitly said it couldn't impose further > restrictions. Reread what you wrote here and see the complete lack of logic in your argument. Author A are Linux developers who distribute their software under GPL 2, TiVO gets the software under the same license and distributes it to their end users. They then make the all the changes to the Linux Kernel available to their end users under the same terms that they got from the Linux kernel developers. What freedom did they take away? - 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/