From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
To: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:41:55 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <or645qfn99.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <200706171418.38844.dhazelton@enter.net> <87fy4qwhaq.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org>
In-Reply-To: <87fy4qwhaq.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200706171541.55338.dhazelton@enter.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 5017
Lines: 105

On Sunday 17 June 2007 14:46:05 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> >> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> >> > connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't
> >> > know how TiVO devices actually connect) but the network being
> >> > connected to has a single owner who can set such terms.
> >> >
> >> > I'll repeat, in full, my earlier examples of this:
> >> > The first:
> >> > I buy a cable modem. Until the second I connect the cable-line to it
> >> > so I can get a connection to the internet I can configure it in
> >> > whatever manner I please. The second the line is connected, even
> >> > though I *OWN* the hardware, I lose all control over its
> >> > configuration.
> >> >
> >> > The second:
> >> > I buy a DSL modem. Until I want to actually connect to the internet it
> >> > can have whatever settings I want it to have. The second I want to
> >> > connect to the internet it has to be configured the way that the ISP
> >> > wants.
> >>
> >> Jung va gur jbeyq znxrf lbh guvax gurer vf n hfrshy nanybtl
> >> orgjrra pbzzhavpngvba fgnaqneqf naq pbclevtug yvprafrf?
> >>
> >> One moment, let me retune.
> >>
> >> What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
> >> between communication standards and copyright licenses?
> >
> > I don't. I was *REPEATING* an example of how TiVO has a *RIGHT* to change
> > the kernel or any other facet of the device connecting to their network.
> > That right *ISN'T* tied to copyright - as you have stated. Since it
> > isn't, why is the FSF trying to mandate that it is with the tivoization
> > clauses in GPLv3?
>
> The FSF *ISN'T* trying to mandate what *CONNECTS* to *TiVO's*
> *NETWORK*.  *BOY* *ISN'T* *SHOUTING* *FUN*?  If Tivo wants to restrict
> what connects to their network, the GPL and FSF will not stop them.
> The major new (relative to GPLv2) things the FSF is trying to restrict
> are new technical and legal methods that software distributors have
> tried to use to convert free software into non-free software.
>
> Tivo's right to dictate or change aspects of devices connecting to
> their network is very much tied to copyright: Tivo needs appropriate
> license if they are modifying or distributing anyone else's work.  I
> am not sure why you think Tivo's right to free association trumps its
> freely entered obligations to copyright owners.

Okay. So they give everyone the right to change the software on the box, but 
on connection replace the modified stuff with the official versions. Is that 
still a copyright problem? Absolutely, positively no. Is the current 
situation any different? Not that I can tell - they've changed a reaction 
into a preemptive act.

> >> Neither law nor common sense give much common ground to the two,
> >> except in the general sense of two parties interacting.  One is a set
> >> of rules so the two can interact through some information channel.
> >> The other is a set of rules so that one can exploit a creative work
> >> developed by the other.
> >>
> >> I suppose that you think it is acceptable for someone to offer access
> >> to binary and source versions of GPLed software (with or without
> >> modifications from commonly available versions) -- but only on the
> >> condition that people never download the source versions?  That
> >> certainly corresponds to the idea that Tivo can keep proprietary
> >> extensions to the kernel if Tivo's customers want to connect to Tivo's
> >> network services.
> >
> > Nope. Because that isn't a right they have that is disconnected from
> > copyright law. Or did you not read the entire post and just decide to try
> > and make me look stupid?
>
> I read your post, but it was full of nonsense.  Tivo has every right
> to restrict what connects to their network.  Tivo does not have the
> right to infringe copyrights in order to make that restriction
> effective.

Okay - "nonsense" in this sense meaning "it proves me wrong, but I can't be 
wrong, so it has no real meaning." I can accept that.

> You have said -- using enough words that you probably deceived
> yourself -- that if Tivo distributes a specially mangled version of
> Linux in order to restrict what connects to their network, and they
> keep the mangling method proprietary, the GPL cannot shed light on
> whether that hoarding is allowed.  Wrong: it can and does.

But the mangling method isn't proprietary. What is proprietary is a number 
that is input to a step of the process. (AFAICT the signing process is done 
with proprietary tools, but the process itself isn't)

DRH

> Michael Poole


-- 
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/