Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760610AbXFTTu1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:50:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756216AbXFTTuU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:50:20 -0400 Received: from 24-75-174-210-st.chvlva.adelphia.net ([24.75.174.210]:50759 "EHLO sanosuke.troilus.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756269AbXFTTuT (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:50:19 -0400 To: david@lang.hm Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Tomas Neme , "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <9a8748490706201034j43139301w5a18c172d688c724@mail.gmail.com> <2e6659dd0706201110x20fa5c28n5d6fc094e9f5c832@mail.gmail.com> <871wg6trnx.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <467977F7.2040506@zytor.com> <87sl8ms9z5.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> From: Michael Poole Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:50:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Wed\, 20 Jun 2007 12\:40\:20 -0700 \(PDT\)") Message-ID: <87k5tys8w5.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: 2570 Lines: 60 david@lang.hm writes: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote: > >> david@lang.hm writes: >> >>> this is very much NOT true. if you take the source the provide you can >>> compile a kernel that will run on the tivo, the only thing you have to >>> do (on some models) is to change the bios to skip the step that checks >>> if the kernel has been tampered with. >> >> If we are opining whether Tivo provided complete source code for their >> Linux kernel images, the requirement to change non-GPLed software as a >> condition to exercise GPL-protected rights speaks for itself. > > no, the GPL protected rights don't say anything about the hardware the > system runs on. > > you are saying that the GPL now controls what the BIOS software is > allowed to do or not allowed to do. Please retract that claim. I have said no such thing, and have avoided saying anything that I thought might be misconstrued in that direction. To be absolutely clear: My complaints with Tivo as a hardware or BIOS vendor are moral and pragmatic, not legal. My complaint with Tivo as a distributor of Linux is what hinges on legal issues. > that's a seperate body of code that is in no way derived from the > linux kernel (even the anti-tampering functions would work equally > well with other Operating systems and are in no way linux > specific). it's no even loaded on the same media (the BIOS is in > flash/rom on the botherboard, the OS is on the hard drive) > > and note that the software that is checked to make sure that it hasn't > been changed includes much more then the kernel. it checks the kernel > and the initrd. Not legally relevant. >> Out of curiosity, what do you have to do on models besides those? Are >> newer models more or less restrictive in what they run? If newer >> models are more restrictive, I think that also speaks to whether Tivo >> thinks it is conveying complete source code. > > newer models do tend to be more restrictive, but they also tend to > connect to more propriatary networks (satellite or cable) What they connect to is also not relevant. That imples that because a vendor has been issued or licensed patents, they are not obliged to follow the GPL -- that the vendor has other obligations that supercede the GPL's license claims. GPL section 7 addresses that situation. Michael Poole - 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/