On Friday 15 June 2007 02:29:32 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > > As a simple matter of fact, the *only* activities covered by the GPLv2 > > are "copying, distributing and modifying". It says so in the license > > itself. > > Unless I have explicitly installed linux myself in the box, I have > received the binary from them, so it can fall in the distribution > case.
Sorry if you missed the rest of the discussion, but the above statement was a rebuttal of the "The GPLv2 intended to guarantee me the right to run the software on any given piece of hardware" argument that has been used as the justification for the addition of the "tivoization" language to the GPLv3. As I stated, I fail to see how "running" the program is, in any way, intended by the license, since it *explicitly* states that it only covers "copying, distribution and modification". The exact place where it does that is "Section 0, paragraph 2, first sentence". I'll quote it here again: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/