On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:33:51AM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Incorrect. Read section 9 of the GPLv2. It's pretty clear that the "any later
> version" clause is optional. Whats more is that since the modern linux kernel
> *IS* a "composite work" composed of Linus' original code with changes
* David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a
> storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But when you
> distribute those same sections as part of a whole...' bit _ever_
> apply? It _explicitly_ talks of sections wh
> No, you do receive the license from the person or entity you received
> the program. You have an _option_ to go to the original author and get
> copy of original code with original license (or maybe other license).
You receive the licence from the original author. The GPL contains no
text allowi
Ingo Molnar writes:
> * Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot
>> > generate a "new" work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so
>> > the signature itself cannot have a copyright at all.
> [...]
>>
>> I do not suggest
On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 13:49, Paulo Marques wrote:
> No, it is not "any version". It is the license specified in COPYING and
> nothing else.
COPYING says in section 9 that there may be other versions, and if you as
author don't specify the ver
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 05:30:09 Bernd Paysan wrote:
>> On Friday 15 June 2007 01:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > if you cannot modify the software that runs on your Tivo hardware you
>> > haven't tried very hard.
>>
>> Yes, but the GPLv2 clearly says that you don't have
On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 20:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> It does not matter. GPL v2 and later can be reduced to v2 by
> recepient.
And expanded by the next recipient to GPLv2 or later, as long as the first
recipient does not make a substantial
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:31:13PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I know. Neither will Linus. But he says he chose GPLv2 such that he
> could, and the v2 is better than v3 in this regard. What's wrong with
> this picture?
I'm sure it's a rethorical question - but what is wrong is that
imho the
On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Watching the output of the first grep without "wc -l" shows that,
> although it is not 100% accurate, it is still ok just to get a rough
> estimate.
>
> So yes, ~6300 files are definitely mo
* Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot
> > generate a "new" work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so
> > the signature itself cannot have a copyright at all.
[...]
>
> I do not suggest that copyright subsists in the
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the argument is quite strong that the linking of two independent works
> is "mere aggregation" as well. (as long as they are truly separate
> works)
You think so?
If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a
storage o
* David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example i'd say VMWare's ESX bin-only module is likely derived
> > from the Linux kernel and should be distributed under the GPL, but
> > that for example the ATI and nvidia drivers, although being a large
> > PITA for all of us, are possibl
* Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > uhm, so if the MPAA and the RIAA pays for another nice piece of
> > legislation that extends the power of copyright owners, do you find
> > it morally justified to use those powers, as long as it's argued to
> > be in favor of some long-term goal th
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> Following your logic it would be a "failure to distribute the source code for
> a work".
>
> However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot generate a "new"
> work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so the signature itself
> cannot have a copyrigh
On Friday 15 June 2007 13:49, Paulo Marques wrote:
> I've contributed some code for the kernel (unlike yourself, AFAICT), and
> believe me, I did so under GPL v2. The COPYING file is pretty much self
> explanatory, so I didn't need to add any explicit license statement to
> my code.
It's not, it's
> because you can solder off the ROM from the Tivo and can put in a new
> ROM with another bootloader that does not check the SHA1 key. Tivo puts
Then you've committed an offence because of the SHA1 key removal. Tivo
deliberately create a system where removal of the ROM is an offence
(sometimes
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i fully support the notion you articulate, that whether bin-only modules
> are part of a derivative work of the kernel or whether they are
> independent works is not an automatic thing at all. The answer is: "it
> depends, talk to your lawy
On Friday 15 June 2007 03:49, Rob Landley wrote:
> (Right now, nobody EXCEPT the FSF has the right to sue somebody to
> enforce the license terms on something like gcc. Do you find that a
> comforting thought?)
Have you ever signed a copyright transfer agreement to the FSF? Obviously
not, becaus
* David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who cares about whether the module is a derivative work? That's only
> relevant when you distribute the module as a separate work. When you
> ship a combined work including both the kernel and the module in
> question, it's a _whole_ lot easier to
Bernd Paysan wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20, Paulo Marques wrote:
Watching the output of the first grep without "wc -l" shows that,
although it is not 100% accurate, it is still ok just to get a rough
estimate.
So yes, ~6300 files are definitely more than a couple ;)
I knew I shouldn't
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do they have to provide a ROM burner if the ROM is socketed rather
> > than soldered into place?
>
> Of course not. They just can't impose restrictions on your obtaining
> a ROM burner and doing the work yourself.
do you realize that you have
Le Ven 15 juin 2007 12:53, Jesper Juhl a écrit :
> On 15/06/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the
>> software", on
>> >> > that piece of hardware it bought which had free software on it,
>> correct?
>> >>
>> >> Yes. This me
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the software",
> > on that piece of hardware it bought which had free software on it,
> > correct?
>
> Yes. This means the hardware distributor who put the software in
> there must not place
On 15/06/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the
software", on
>> > that piece of hardware it bought which had free software on it,
correct?
>>
>> Yes. This means the hardware distributor who put the software in
>> there must n
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 06:03 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> In other words, it applies to *SECTIONS* of the code, not to individual
> object
> code files. This is why kernel modules can have their own, separate license
> from the kernel. It isn't until the code is shipped as a *standard* part of
On Friday 15 June 2007 06:18:59 David Greaves wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> Now for a different PoV:
> >> Do I think Tivoisation is bad for the community ?
> >> Of course I think it is but your mileage may vary.
> >
> > And I happen to agree with you. What I disagree with is taking steps to
On Friday 15 June 2007 06:02:11 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 07:24, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:20:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
> > > other people's improvements, cannot be taken wi
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Now for a different PoV:
Do I think Tivoisation is bad for the community ?
Of course I think it is but your mileage may vary.
And I happen to agree with you. What I disagree with is taking steps to
make "bad == illegal". I also have a problem with doing things that force
On Friday 15 June 2007 05:30:09 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 01:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > if you cannot modify the software that runs on your Tivo hardware you
> > haven't tried very hard.
>
> Yes, but the GPLv2 clearly says that you don't have to try very hard. The
> preferr
On Friday 15 June 2007 05:17:44 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 04:58 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > If the module is distributed 'as a separate work', _then_ what you say
> > > is true: the only reason you'd have a right to the source is if the
> > > module is considered a 'der
On Friday 15 June 2007 07:24, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:20:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
> > other people's improvements, cannot be taken without qualification.
>
> No. Linus and other Linux kernels
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:47, David Schwartz wrote:
> The GPL does not require it to be easy in fact to modify the piece of
> software.
Yes it does, section 3: "The source code for a work means the preferred form
of the work for making modifications to it." It then even lists that you
need to
On Friday 15 June 2007 01:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> if you cannot modify the software that runs on your Tivo hardware you
> haven't tried very hard.
Yes, but the GPLv2 clearly says that you don't have to try very hard. The
preferred form of modification has to be distributed. I can run a
de
On Friday 15 June 2007 02:24:37 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > Because GPLv2 doesn't enforce limitations on the hardware a GPL'd work
> > can be put on. It doesn't make artificial distinctions between
> > "Commercial", "Industrial" and "User". What it does is *ATTEMPT* to
> > ensure that nobody receivin
> 2) I don't know how the FSF is approaching the Linux developers, but
> what I've been personally trying to do in this infinite thread was
> mainly to set the record straight that v3 did not change the spirit of
> the license, like some have claimed.
The FSF have certainly tried to talk to me a b
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 04:58 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > If the module is distributed 'as a separate work', _then_ what you say
> > is true: the only reason you'd have a right to the source is if the
> > module is considered a 'derivative work'.
> >
> > But when you distribute the same module
> > A Tivo box is a collection of literary works protected by copyright,
> > designs protected by design patents and copyright, names and logos
> > protected by trademarks, functionalities protected by patents and many
> > more things. These are the things that restrict what I may do with it
>
On Friday 15 June 2007 04:25:24 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:44 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE*
> > distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it
> > both ways. If the module is distr
On Friday 15 June 2007 00:36, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> A hundred or so messages back someone stated that the parport driver in
> Linux is GPLv1.1
Probably a misinterpretation - there are comments in the parport driver
mentioning the GFDL version 1.1. If you just grep through, you might think
it'
David Schwartz wrote :
> The GPL is about having the legal right to modify the software and
being
> able to put other people's distributed improvements back into the
> original code base. It does not guarantee that you will actually be
able
> to modify the software and get it to work on some parti
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:37 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > For many juridisctions loading from disk into memory is copying and in
> > some from memory to CPU cache a second copy. This is one reason as I
> > understand it GPLv3 talks ab
On Thursday 14 June 2007 20:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> It does not matter. GPL v2 and later can be reduced to v2 by
> recepient.
And expanded by the next recipient to GPLv2 or later, as long as the first
recipient does not make a substantial modification ("substantial" is a
copyright term - th
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:44 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE*
> distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it both
> ways. If the module is distributed *with* the kernel *SOURCE* then it doesn't
> matter i
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Watching the output of the first grep without "wc -l" shows that,
> although it is not 100% accurate, it is still ok just to get a rough
> estimate.
>
> So yes, ~6300 files are definitely more than a couple ;)
Most of them don't say anything,
On Friday 15 June 2007 04:19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I will state one more time: I think that what Tivo did was and is:
>
> (a) perfectly legal wrt the GPLv2 (and I have shown multiple times why
> your arguments don't hold logical water - if you actually followed
> them yourself, you wo
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
> >
> > If the DRM signature and program executable are coupled such that
> > they are not useful when separated, the implication to me is that
> > they form one work that is based on the original Program.
On Friday 15 June 2007 01:08, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 07:27:59 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > Where is the boundary between hard- and software?
>
> Software's the bit that's infinitely replicable at zero cost. Hardware
> tends not to be.
There's no "zero cost" for software replicat
> Because GPLv2 doesn't enforce limitations on the hardware a GPL'd work can be
> put on. It doesn't make artificial distinctions between "Commercial",
> "Industrial" and "User". What it does is *ATTEMPT* to ensure that nobody
> receiving a copy of a GPL'd work has the same rights as any other p
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:38:41AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > #define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR
>
> > A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware. The manufacturer has the
> > source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS. The BI
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:25:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> >> And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
> >> of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed ima
On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > All quite valid reasons in my opinion.
> >
> > and all wrong.
> >
> > Look up the owning and controlling interests in Tivo and you'll find the
> > correct reason - stopping you doing evil things like keeping movies
> > you've recorded or upl
On 15/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
> any fscking thing.
Ok, lemme try again:
case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, reali
On 15/06/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why can't you understand that the GPL v2 is a *software* license, it
> doesn't cover hardware at all.
The GPLv2 is a copyright license not a software licence, indeed there is
no such thing as a 'software licence'. It deals with the circumstances
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
> r
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:16:46AM -0400, Sean wrote:
> There's no problem with people voicing honest disagreement with the v3,
> but please lighten up a bit on FSF bashing and the Greek tragedy talk.
Would you prefer a reference to Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui?
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
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.
--
Glaube
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:24:32 -0400
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. Linus and other Linux kernels might *want* to take other people's
> improvements, but thanks to Richard Stallman's choices for GPLv3, they
> can *not* legally take other people's improvements without violating
> the
On Friday 15 June 2007 01:38:41 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR
> >
> > A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware. The manufacturer has the
> > source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS. The BIOS is requir
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an
> >> issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright
On Friday 15 June 2007 00:14:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
> >> the hardware won't let him use the result of his effor
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR
> A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware. The manufacturer has the
> source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS. The BIOS is required for the
> machine to boot and run Linux.
> Riddle me this (es
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:54:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
> >>
> >> I produce egg yolk. I give it to you under terms that say "if you
> >
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:04:37 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:13:13 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> The fundamental reason for this is that neither the executable code
> >> nor the digital signature serves the desired function alone. The user
> >> recei
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:20:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
> other people's improvements, cannot be taken without qualification.
No. Linus and other Linux kernels might *want* to take other people's
improvements, but th
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:39:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're making an artificial distinction based on whether the
> > *SOFTWARE* has a certain license or not.
>
> What matters to me is that, when the GPL says you can't impose fur
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:14:49AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm not pushing anything. I'm
> defending the GPLv3 from accusations that it's departing from the GPL
> spirit, and I'm trying to find out in what way Tivoization promotes
> the goals you perceiv
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:22:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
> > any fscking thing.
>
> Ok, lemme try again:
>
> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> If the signature is one that serves to indicate origin, to detect
> tampering, or the other things you mentioned, the program's binary is
> useful when separated from the signature. My objection arises when a
> functionally equivalent binary -- incl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> OK. Let's take this to the simp
On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
>> the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up
> So you're blaming Tivo for the fact th
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:50:04AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
>
> the Tivo box is a piece of hardware.
>
> a disk is put into it with software copied to it already: a bootloader,
> a Linux kernel plus a handful of applications. The free sof
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK. Let's take this to the simple and logical conclusion. A signed
filesystem image containing both GPL and n
On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Yes. They'd have to give up the ability to update the software, or
>> pass it on to the user. If they can't do the latter, they could still
>> do the former. How bad would this be for
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
>> I produce egg yolk. I give it to you under terms that say "if you
>> pass this on, you must do so in such a way that doesn't stop anyone
On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> If the DRM signature and program executable are coupled such that they
>> are not useful when separated, the implication to me is that they form
>> one work that is based on the original P
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
> the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up
So you're blaming Tivo for the fact that your end user was a lazy bum and
wanted to take advantage of
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. Let's take this to the simple and logical conclusion. A signed
> filesystem image containing both GPL and non-GPL code. From your
> point A, this is a derived work.
I claim the signature is derived from the GPLed bits, yes. Wheth
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're making an artificial distinction based on whether the
> *SOFTWARE* has a certain license or not.
What matters to me is that, when the GPL says you can't impose further
restrictions, then you can't, no matter how convoluted your
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Yes. They'd have to give up the ability to update the software, or
> pass it on to the user. If they can't do the latter, they could still
> do the former. How bad would this be for them, do you know?
In other words, you advocate license for te
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> If the DRM signature and program executable are coupled such that they
>> are not useful when separated, the implication to me is that they form
>> one work that is based on the original Program. This is beyond the
>> GPL's
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
> any fscking thing.
Ok, lemme try again:
case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
the hardware won't let him use the result of his effor
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> If the DRM signature and program executable are coupled such that they
> are not useful when separated, the implication to me is that they form
> one work that is based on the original Program. This is beyond the
> GPL's permission for "mere aggregat
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an
>> issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control
>> that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobod
On Thursday 14 June 2007 05:32:47 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:24, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Harald is in Germany, and he therefore takes legal action against people
> > distributing products violating his copyright on the Linux kernel
> > in Germany at German courts based on Germ
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without
>> achieving any of my goals.
> What do you expect, when you tried to entertain a legal picture of the
> GPLv2 that ev
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:13:13 Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> The fundamental reason for this is that neither the executable code
>> nor the digital signature serves the desired function alone. The user
>> received a copy of the executable for a particular purpose: to run
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused
> > about how software licenses work.
> >
> > the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
> >
>
On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I understand this very well. You'd have to get the kernel upgraded to
>> GPLv3 in order to accept the contribution.
> Why do you keep saying "upgraded" to GPLv3?
Just because i
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:13:13 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > What rights did they give to "downstream" recipients of the "object code"
> > version? *EXACTLY* those they received from the GPLv2.
>
> Doing the e-mail equivalent of yelling about this will not change the
Sorry,
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:27:27 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or
>> > other GPL'd software installed an
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > Wait, a signed filesystem image that happens to contain GPL code
> > is now a derived work? Under what sort of interpretation does *that*
> > occur?
>
> Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed component, as
> much as it is derived from
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:43:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > So let's look at that "section 6" that you talk about, and quote the
> >> > relevant parts, will we:
>
On Jun 14, 2007, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>> And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
>> of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have
>> you)
> Wait, a signed filesystem image tha
On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused
> about how software licenses work.
> the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
> the Tivo box is a piece of hardware.
> a disk is put into it with so
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without
> achieving any of my goals.
What do you expect, when you tried to entertain a legal picture of the
GPLv2 that even the FSF counsel doesn't believe in?
I will state one more time:
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> What rights did they give to "downstream" recipients of the "object code"
> version? *EXACTLY* those they received from the GPLv2.
Doing the e-mail equivalent of yelling about this will not change the
fact that people who think Tivo did something wrong -- legally and/or
On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking
>> dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the
>> signing key away. This should be good for
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:49:13 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > I'm not saying it legally clear the other way round, my statement was
> > an answer to Daniel's emails claiming it was clear what such companies
> > do was legal.
>
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone that impression. My point was that it would
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:45:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to
> >>> everyone -
601 - 700 of 1070 matches
Mail list logo
