Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757858AbXFUAPT (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:15:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755412AbXFUAOy (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:14:54 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.225]:18479 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755136AbXFUAOx (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:14:53 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AQvoO/zdSS6zv8RneNbyhpIgPFrfP0baV/lvkup8JPkyP5bAm7VfaXwBJO2J4rR8FG2hMeE38HemhMzz2BalRDNr9EkW9VycbLzVB3B8LiGs4+bWIzTs4ixA/abt6KrvenQ0CkJ7MXSfZvBSZmv08q+1GxnL2fDhTLjQ/nJ700o= Message-ID: <161717d50706201714w4b3b072fxf1cc3b93ef1ea00e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:14:52 -0400 From: "Dave Neuer" Reply-To: mr.fred.smoothie@pobox.com To: davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Tomas Neme" , mdpool@troilus.org, "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <161717d50706201634m68992ddeqb1d7557fb43c0822@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1969 Lines: 45 On 6/20/07, David Schwartz wrote: > > > This argument is the obvious nonsense. "Runs on TiVO" is a property of > > the software that TiVO distributes -- such an important property that > > it would be nonsensical for them to distribute it with their hardware. > > But they do distribute it, and only the GPL allows them to. > > Why does the importance of the property matter to the validity of the > argument? >From a legal standpoint, perhaps you're right, it doesn't matter what the function is. From a moral standpoint it should be obvious to you that "runs on TiVO" is TiVO's sole motivation to distribute the software at all, it is "the software" and arguing that they have an equivalent obligation WRT it as to some incidental thing like Linus' signing key is just preposterous. > > > Tivo's choice is an authorization decision. It is similar to > > > you not having > > > root access to a Linux box. Sorry, you can't run a modified > > > kernel on that > > > machine, but you can still modify the kernel and run it on any hardware > > > where authorization decisions don't stop you from doing so. The GPL was > > > never about such authorization decisions. > > > Says judge Schwartz. Oops. That's right, you're not a judge in any > > legal jurisdiction, nor an author of the GPL. > > Nice argument. I'm wrong because people can disagree with me. No, in this case you are wrong because absent authority to decide the meaning from a dispositive legal standpoint (the law says the license means this) or knowledge of the intent of the author of the GPL (I the author intended it to mean this), your statement that the GPL was "never about" "such decisions" is meaningless, AFAICT. > > DS Dave - 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/