Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758022AbXFPW0Z (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:26:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755866AbXFPW0R (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:26:17 -0400 Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50079 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753739AbXFPW0Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:26:16 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Alexandre Oliva Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:26:03 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Tim Post , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <200706132304.21984.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706161443.26338.dhazelton@enter.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706161826.03408.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2445 Lines: 51 On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:01:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > >> > In the case of renting a machine you can try to legislate new laws all > >> > you want. It doesn't make a difference. There are certain rights you > >> > don't get when renting something that you do when you own it. > >> > >> You mean renting the computer with the software in it is not > >> distribution of the software? > > > > It is. But you don't have the same rights to a rented machine as you > > do to one you have purchased. > > That's true. But since it's distribution, the licensing terms of the > software in there must be followed, or the software must be removed. > It's really this simple. > > It's not about the hardware. It's about the software and what you > must not prevent others from doing with it. > > > And yes, they can even have terms in it that violate the GPL. Not > > that a "renters contract" ("rental agreement" or whatever they call > > them in your jurisdiction) that has those terms can *legally* > > violate the GPL - but it doesn't stop them from existing. > > By "legally violate the GPL", do you mean lawfully escape the terms of > the GPL, or that infringe the copyrights of the authors for violate > its legal terms? I hope it's the latter. Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant that they can violate the GPL, because they have the right to say "You can't modify the software on the device you are renting". I mis-stated it because I didn't make it clear that, even though that is their legal right, they would still be in violation of the GPL. The reason that it is different from the TiVO case is that they have not stopped you from doing any modification - what they have prevented is the use of those modifications on the hardware they designed. The response from the FSF and people like you (Alexandre) is childish - at best. "They have one of our toys in their house but we can't play with it. WAAAAH!" DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - 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/