Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756291AbXFQUuX (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:50:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751837AbXFQUuJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:50:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46932 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751862AbXFQUuG (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:50:06 -0400 To: Alan Cox Cc: Ingo Molnar , Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <20070614235004.GA14952@elte.hu> <20070615041149.GA6741@brong.net> <20070615072322.GA7594@brong.net> <20070616021630.GA30660@brong.net> <20070616103130.GD32405@brong.net> <20070616233251.GA17270@brong.net> <20070617122025.5a444e62@the-village.bc.nu> <20070617211853.400712e0@the-village.bc.nu> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:49:43 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070617211853.400712e0@the-village.bc.nu> (Alan Cox's message of "Sun\, 17 Jun 2007 21\:18\:53 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1489 Lines: 40 On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300 > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox wrote: >> >> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization. >> >> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in >> > software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be >> > tamperproof to random end consumers). >> >> But this is not tivoization. > It most definitely is >> Tivoization is a manufacturer using technical measures to prevent the >> user from tampering (*) with the device, *while* keeping the ability >> to tamper with it changes itself. > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules. AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself. Therefore, per the above, FCC doesn't mandate tivoization. Is there anything else I'm missing that would show it does? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} - 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/