Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758627AbXFTUIM (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:08:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759055AbXFTUH7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:07:59 -0400 Received: from 24-75-174-210-st.chvlva.adelphia.net ([24.75.174.210]:34010 "EHLO sanosuke.troilus.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758512AbXFTUH6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:07:58 -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> <87k5tys8w5.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> From: Michael Poole Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:07:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Wed\, 20 Jun 2007 12\:58\:55 -0700 \(PDT\)") Message-ID: <87645is82q.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: 2115 Lines: 48 david@lang.hm writes: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote: > >> 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. > > but if the GPL doesn't control the BIOS how in the world are you > saying that the fact that the GPL covers the kernel makes what the > BIOS does wrong (even if the kernel was covered by GPLv3)? I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing complete source code for it. >>> 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. > > I disagree. it's very relevant if your argument is that becouse the > checksum if a checksum of the kernel that the license for the kernel > somehow controlls what can be done with it. To the extent that it is relevant, it strengthens the argument against Tivo: they are tying together many works of authorship, including some GPLed works, in a way that makes them effectively inseparable. This is beyond "mere aggregation" on a distribution medium, and tends to implicate *all* parts of the whole as GPL encumbered. 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/