On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:26:47AM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 08:44 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman, at least, is talking about the presumed illegality > > of non-free drivers in Linux at every opportunity. (Why he's not > > chosen to take legal action against infringers, I'm not sure.) > And it's not like he's the only one. But there are only a couple of > developers taking action over the GPL, and usually over the grossest > infringement (e.g., distribution without source). There's also things like EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, kernel tainting when proprietary modules are loaded and an advertised (and regularly used) lack of stability in internal kernel APIs. > Because of that, there will always be ways around the restrictions of > the GPL. The anti-Tivo-isation clause is actually incredibly limited: I > have no doubt it wouldn't prevent Tivo _at all_. For one, it applies > only to source code, and only talks of a couple of specific > technologies: basically, unless the binary encodes a secret key (e.g., > DVD CSS) or is digitally signed (I don't know of anyone doing this - > maybe Xbox?), it doesn't apply. Requiring signed binaries is exactly what TiVo are doing. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
