Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755472AbXFOG7k (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:59:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752561AbXFOG7d (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:59:33 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.231]:21595 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752555AbXFOG7c (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:59:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GeastSg/qZsktoex9RktywayDCFv4BDnRNVGD8Rlyad2VvtyLeQjuPIe6A/r8dxEJ9ANnAZY5TB+wpYH9rYegzGn6JneNlXlweQYlepLcytAXqcUD9WLfttCTq2s6ZRQOuHk6XZfet9Tuu3Lci+MY+/uq+WGWbGicY+iebEqi4M= Message-ID: <9a8748490706142359v3acbdf7m8731d6dc3071a775@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:59:31 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Alan Cox" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Daniel Hazelton" , "Chris Friesen" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , david@lang.hm, "Tarkan Erimer" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" In-Reply-To: <20070615004513.6816e04b@the-village.bc.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <46718044.1040108@nortel.com> <200706141848.55378.dhazelton@enter.net> <9a8748490706141618t58082edctd4c166b82eddee97@mail.gmail.com> <20070615004513.6816e04b@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2141 Lines: 53 On 15/06/07, Alan Cox wrote: > > Why can't you understand that the GPL v2 is a *software* license, it > > doesn't cover hardware at all. > > The GPLv2 is a copyright license not a software licence, indeed there is > no such thing as a 'software licence'. It deals with the circumstances > and manner in which you are permitted (by the author) to make copies of > their work, to modify their work and in some cases to perform their work > (plus other sundry rights). Copyright law doesn't care whether the object > in question is as abstract as computer source code (providing it has been > 'fixated' in some form) or a two hundred foot high art installation - or > a combination of the two. > Right. My bad. > So irrespective of the whole pointless debate going on you are trying to > draw lines that don't exist in the first place. > > > I can't know for a fact what TiVO wants, but I can guess. > > You could also do your research. > I have absolutely no idea where to go look something like that up :-( > > All quite valid reasons in my opinion. > > and all wrong. > > Look up the owning and controlling interests in Tivo and you'll find the > correct reason - stopping you doing evil things like keeping movies > you've recorded or uploading them to the internet [which ironically of > course is the entire effect of the whole 'convergence' thing] > Hmm, wouldn't that be my guess nr. 2? A way to use the hardware to break the law... Anway, the whole point of my post was mainly to /try/ and say that the GPL gives you a right to obtain source code for modifications, but it doesn't say anything about being able to run a compiled version of that source on any specific hardware. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/