Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932286AbXFRUE5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:04:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764116AbXFRUEh (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:04:37 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:4288 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763908AbXFRUEf (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:04:35 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:03:41 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:04:07 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:04:09 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1731 Lines: 44 > 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. > 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. You're splitting those hairs might finely. So when you ask whether there's any law that "requirse tivoization", you won't accept a law that creates a situation where the only practical solution is tivoization? > (*) tampering brings in negative connotations that I'd rather avoid, > but since that was the term you used, and the term "modifying" might > bring in legal-based technicalities such as that replacing isn't > modification, I just went with it. > So, given a proper definition, do you know any law that requires > tivoization? > Taking it further, do you know whether any such law requires > *worldwide* tivoization, as in, applying the restrictions in the law > even outside its own jurisdiction? A law that requires certaint things be tamper-proof, where engineering realities requires that they be controlled by software and the software be upgradable (for security reasons and for support of future protocol revisions) isn't good enough for you? DS - 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/