Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757457AbXFOBua (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:50:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751926AbXFOBuX (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:50:23 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.225]:3348 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751564AbXFOBuV (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:50:21 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VZJsi3Ldnp1MJ7fdxyM8dnuo4uMDr+2M1HD8rZSJT1WwaJTmNSH99mmezLkQGTZaQVIixR4lizgyKPFacI0q0K0YYVxVBK8+vqQr8YUQJtzrb+VYllXzbbtFlGp/baNvyqIE3Q+LUo/wddPw5laLsVnt9dGXMMQuZ9j/RL64do8= Message-ID: <4671F127.40000@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:53:43 -0400 From: Florin Malita User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061027) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Oliva CC: Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706140305.50095.dhazelton@enter.net> <46717C58.8050501@gmail.com> <4671A528.5040300@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2983 Lines: 78 On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita wrote: > >> No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative >> work. Modification does. >> > > Thanks. Good point. This convinces me that this doesn't work as a > legal argument under copyright. > > I still stand by my understanding that this restriction violates the > spirit of the license. > But since this elusive "spirit" is subject to everybody's interpretation of the preamble, you must surely admit that it remains just a matter of opinion ;) >> It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the >> right to install new versions on the device >> > > Actually, no. They withhold the right to run versions that they don't > authorize themselves. > On that particular piece of hw, yes. But who's granted you the right to *run* your modified copy *there* in the first place? GPLv2 explicitly steers clear of anything "other than copying, distribution and modification". > Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an > issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control > that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobody had thought of > technical measures to stop people from running modified copies of > software. At least nobody involved in GPLv2, AFAIK. > > The landscape has changed, and GPLv3 is meant to defend this freedom > that was taken for granted. > Then you agree that GPLv2 does not protect your freedom (taken for granted) to run a modified copy on any particular device, or am I misreading? >>> What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your >>> editor? >>> > > >> Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact >> copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;) >> > > Sorry, I really don't follow. Both versions of the kernel binary also > started from a common source ancestor. Were you trying to make a > distinction on these grounds? > Exactly: they have a common ancestor, they are both derived from it. But there's no ancestry relationship *between* them (unlike your edited file example) so you cannot argue that one is a modification of the other. Hence, Tivo is not really *modifying* the copies it distributes with the device - they're *installing* brand new copies instead. They also choose not to offer everybody the same privilege :-| Does this go against the intent of the GPLv2 authors? Probably. Does it go against the letter of GPLv2? Apparently not. Does it go against your/some people's interpretation of the GPL "spirit"? Obviously. Does it go against everybody's interpretation? Obviously not. --- fm - 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/