Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761608AbXFSBWJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:22:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755390AbXFSBV5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:21:57 -0400 Received: from 24-75-174-210-st.chvlva.adelphia.net ([24.75.174.210]:34403 "EHLO sanosuke.troilus.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754413AbXFSBV5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:21:57 -0400 To: davids@webmaster.com Cc: , "Alexandre Oliva" , "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: From: Michael Poole Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:21:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: (David Schwartz's message of "Mon\, 18 Jun 2007 15\:59\:25 -0700") Message-ID: <87tzt4vivf.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (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: 1971 Lines: 41 David Schwartz writes: >> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not >> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there. > > No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the hardware but not > all of them. Specifically, they do not buy the right to choose what software > runs on that hardware. That right is still owned by TiVo. Do you have a reference to the contract establishing that cession of rights from the buyer to Tivo? To the extent that some contract purports to restrict the user in ways contrary to the GPL, I suspect Tivo might have a hard time defending it in court. > You can argue that TiVo is being dishonest, breaking the law, being immoral, > or whatever in retaining this right or in failing to disclose that they > retain it. But you cannot coherently deny that TiVo retains this right when > they sell certain other rights to the hardware. By the first sale doctrine, someone who buys an item has practically unlimited rights to deal with it or dispose of it as the buyer wishes. The only things that would restrict that are statute or a contract entered as part of the sale -- most likely a EULA or other shrink-wrap agreement. Given that most such recognized agreements deal with software or services rather than hardware, I am not sure a court would recognize a hardware EULA as being binding. (I suspect this is the direction you were heading with the paragraph below.) Michael Poole > I do in fact argue that there are things that are wrong with TiVo doing > this. But they are not GPL-related things. I would make these same arguments > if the TiVo contained no GPL'd software and I in fact do make them about > products like the Xbox. > > 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/