On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:35:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release
> > improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge
> > those improvements if I want
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an addiction. I'm not proud.
I guess this makes it two of us :-(
> They were basically forced to add lockdown by the content vendors.
They can do that. They will still be able to do that with v3.
All they have to do is to throw
On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative
work. Modification does.
Thanks. Good point. This convinces me that this doesn't work as a
legal argument under copyright.
I st
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:18:12 Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:09:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux.
>
> [...]
>
> > I'm not going to bother discussing this any more. You don't seem to
> > respect my right to choose t
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:55 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they
> > make the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm not
> > going to get into argumen
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:
>> >
>> >You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipie
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:39:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
> of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have
> you) and refraining from providing the corresponding sources to that
> derived work (the key
On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now the FSF is coming along and being Darth Vader: "I am altering
> the bargain. Pray I don't alter it any further."
1) it can't possibly do that. the Linux license is something that
only the Linux developers can decide.
2) I don't know
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:20:35PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> Why do you keep saying "upgraded" to GPLv3? How is it an improvement to move
> from a small, simple, elegant, and tested implementation to something that's
> more complicated, less elegant, less coherent, totally untested, and full o
* Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty
> > confused about how software licenses work.
>
> There is no such thing as a software licence. It is a copyright
> licence.
a "software license" is a common shortcut for "copyright lice
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:32:08 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
>> > They let you have the code and make changes to it,
>>
>> Not to the software installed in the device.
> So now
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > But not within the confines of the Linux kernel. Within the Linux kernel,
> > the GPLv2 rules - and "GPLv2+" becomes just "GPLv2", since the GPLv3 is
> > not compatible with v2.
>
> I understand this very well. You'd have to get the kern
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 and place limits such that only
> > people that have purchased that h
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:19:51 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With GPLv2 and prior there was a simple guarantee that every
> > "Licensee" had exactly the same rights. With GPLv3 you are forcing
> > your ethics and morals on people - and i
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:25:19PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
>> > changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:14:21AM -0400, Robin Getz wrote:
> - gambling devices - which must have their software certified by various
> government agencies - to make sure that the odds are known, and there are no
> backdoors, and consumers don't get screwed - the manufacture can not allow
> no
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:42 David Schwartz wrote:
> I don't know who you are talking to or what you are talking about. I
> haven't seen anybody doing what you claim in this thread or anywhere else
> and I certainly am not.
I'm asking what is the _point_ of the discussion?
Linux, the project
> Perhaps the FSF will in future remember to pack a copy of the GPL in each
> of its md5sum files on the mirror if this is a derivative work, and
> modify the bittorrent protocol to include a copy of the GPL in the seed
> files 8)
>
> Alan
I realize you're joking, but for the benefit of anyone wh
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
>
> But then the paragraph from COPYING kicks in, reading:
Read the COPYING file more closely, and realize that "the Program" has
always specified a version number of this license.
It used to include it just by virtue of having the COPYING file *itself*
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:14:09 Sean wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and
> > not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism
> > that w
> Like, they can release/sell the whole thing under some arbitrary
> other license at their choice. But once you license it with the GPLv2,
> then you can't stop anyone else (who got it under that license) from
> using the code under that license anymore, as such it doesn't matter that
> you are th
Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:09:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux.
> [...]
>> I'm not going to bother discussing this any more. You don't seem to
>> respect my right to choose the license for my
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nope. Merely stating a distinction. Either a device is distributed, like the
> common PC, that is designed for the user to change and update the software
> on, or, like the PS2 it isn't designed for that. If I find a way to update my
> PS2 to run Li
On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:42:44 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as
> >> > you see fit. I just expect yo
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 and
>>> makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort
> the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused
> about how software licenses work.
There is no such thing as a software licence. It is a copyright licence.
> the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
You can GPL a new graphical logo you painted on your t
(oh and a GPL3 as there isn't one yet...)
I really don't like license discussions - and after reading in the
mailinglist FAQ that license posts are taboo here - I was partly annoyed,
partly amazed to see this HUGE flood of mails with as subject line
"Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:46:36 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?
> >
> > Do you need anything else?
>
> No, I'm quite happy
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:45:08 -0400
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 sign
> B) There are actually manufacturers who would be happy with your straw man.
> Lots of companies in the far east produce products that infringe on patents
> from 30 different competitors, and rather than try to license everything
> (which isn't even always possible) they spin off a shell compa
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > you are not "entitled" to dictate the hardware's design (or any
> > other copyrighted work's design),
>
> Agreed.
hey, that's progre
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tivo *respected* the freedoms, and gave source back, and gave you all the
same rights you had to Linux originally, and to their modifications.
How stupid are you to not acknowledge that?
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 that happens to contain GPL code
is now a derived work? Under what sort
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu 14 Jun 2007 01:07, Alexandre Oliva pondered:
> >> then maybe the small
> >> company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are
> >> various ways to preven
> If you don't want to cave in to content providers, use a regular PC and
> soemthing like MythTV. You will probably also have to use the analogue
> hole
Only in the USA. In most of the world its considered quite normal that
you can plug a USB disk into your PVR, save stuff to it and then plug i
> 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
and manner in which you are permitted (by the auth
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:57:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how you can claim that the vendor is infringing on your
> > freedom, _you_ made the decision to go out and buy the product knowing
> > that the vendor wasn't goi
> Do you even understand what "tit-for-tat" means?
I don't. Could someone please explain it. Specifically:
1) What is "tat"?
2) How can I get some?
3) Where do I go to trade it in?
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAI
> This is the main reason I dislike GPLwhatever: there is no notion
> of "orginal author". You might have written 99% of the code, that
Every literary work (including thus software) has an author, and that
author has certain rights which are implicit in them being author.
> doesn't matter. You ha
[ Damn. I moved you to my flamers list, and then I started reading it. I'm
addicted to flaming. Sue me. I really do enjoy it too much. If I didn't
do software development, my full-time job would probably be to troll
various internet sites and try to set up flame wars. I'm bad, I know.
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 and
>> makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to
>> accept them, rather than rejecting them bec
"Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does not matter. GPL v2 and later can be reduced to v2 by
> recepient. Linus did just that so unless individual source file
> explicitely carries "and later" it is v2.
Well, if it said "licenced under GPL" it would mean any GPL.
Though it's proba
On 15/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
So what is it that makes hardware so different that it can be used as
a trick to deny users freedoms, if other tricks can't?
[snip]
Why can't you understand that the GPL v2 is a *software* license, it
doesn't cover hardware at all
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:04:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe.
>
> Are you playing Linus' sheeple and parroting his lines just to make a
> point, or are you like that all the time? ;-)
R
On Thursday 14 June 2007 11:44:07 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:08, Alan Milnes wrote:
> > Agreed - if you want to take my work you are welcome as long as you
> > contribute back your changes. That's the deal that GPL2 enforces and
> > why it has been so successful.
>
> That ma
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:09:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'm the original author, and I selected the GPLv2 for Linux.
[...]
> I'm not going to bother discussing this any more. You don't seem to
> respect my right to choose the license for my own code.
This is the main reason I dislike GP
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:
> >
> > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> > exercise of the rights granted herein.
> >
> > and then
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:32:08 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> > They let you have the code and make changes to it,
>
> Not to the software installed in the device.
So now you want access to all the software that is installed in their devi
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the
>> > license, the thing I cared about was that so
On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:25:46 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral
> > > boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF
> > > seems to
> >
> > Assuming a democratic state then the laws
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.
Rob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a messag
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use
>> >> the har
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:55:09 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
>> >> And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of
>> >>
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and
> makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to
> accept them, rather than rejecting them because they're under the
> GPLv3?
You *cannot* make GPLv3-only co
> A hundred or so messages back someone stated that the parport driver in Linux
> is GPLv1.1 - however, on checking on this statement for myself I've found
> that there is no statement about it being v1.1 and, in fact, given that Linux
> itself is GPLv2 there is no possible way any code covered
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
> >> hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
> >> Softwa
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the
> > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available.
>
> Ok, the MIT license could g
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 - just to those that get the binaries.
>> Exactly. Not even to t
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:31:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could.
Those would not ensure that the source code stays free.
> > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the
> > improvements back.
>
> GPL won't ge
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:55:09 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
> >> And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of
> >> hardware throught the influence of their software.
>
> It's not.
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> But how about inside the TiVO, so as to use Linux and the rest of the
> GNU/Linux distro put in there for an even better DVR experience?
>
> Sure, this might still be accomplished on another hardware platform.
> But the TiVO already has all the hardware
On Jun 14, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
>> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
>> running the Program is not restricted, ...
>>
>> The license does not cover running of the program.
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release
> improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge
> those improvements if I want to.
Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ cont
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:53:47 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code?
> > Maybe that code said 'or later' in the license and hence someone added
> > it to a GPL v2 project since that sounds pe
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the
> license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available.
Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could.
> I didn't want mo
> > Since the Linux kernel as a whole does not have a single author, it is
> > impossible to license it as a whole. Nobody has the authority
> > to do that.
> > (The GPL is not a copyright assignment type license.)
> Actually, Linus Torvalds, as maintainer, probably has a
> compilation copyright
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they make
> the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm not going to
> get into arguments over whether kernel modules are "derivative works" or not,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:28:34PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel
> > as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code
> > submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the
> > underst
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:28:34 David Schwartz wrote:
> > The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel
> > as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code
> > submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the
> > understanding t
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 - just to those that get the binaries.
Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus'
theory of tit-for-tat fal
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> running the Program is not restricted, ...
>
> The license does not cover running of the program. It doesn't restrict
> it, but it doesn't cover it. C
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/14/2007 02:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> No, by this twisted logic Tivo *cannot* modify that particular copy
>>> any more than you can. They can modify *another* copy (just like you)
>>> and they can *replace* the copy in your d
On 6/14/07, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
> > changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
> > the
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No. I'm not stupid.
> >
> > The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions.
>
> So what? You just refrain from accepting contributions that attempt
> to remove them, a
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 and place limits such that only
> people that have purchased that hardware have access to the
> "modified" source running on the devi
On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
> changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
> the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled.
Oh, come on: you're not
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of
> > situation is ok.
>
> Wow, do you remember the date when you first thought of this business
> model?
You know wha
On 6/14/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And what about people who can't modify the Linux kernel? They don't know C.
They don't know how to use a shell. They're not familiar with UNIX operating
systems at all. Maybe they aren't smart enough to modify kernel code.
I learned C in pa
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With GPLv2 and prior there was a simple guarantee that every
> "Licensee" had exactly the same rights. With GPLv3 you are forcing
> your ethics and morals on people - and isn't this exactly what the
> Roman Catholic church did during th
> So how come they can so easily move to GPLv3 ?
> Don't they have to have permission from all of those contributors (many
> of which are Linux companies and distributors who might prefer staying
> at GPLv2) ?
The FSF uses copyright assignments to ensure the entire project is under
FSF control. Li
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> I see what you mean. IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works.
> There *are* lawyers who have said that what Tivo did was legal.
What I wrote above had ZERO to do with TiVO. Plea
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional
>> permission for Tivoization?
> No. I'm not stupid.
> The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:24:19PM -0400, Dave Neuer wrote:
> Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
> -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs,
> outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have
> the money to pay one-of
* Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:55:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > This "right to modify" and "have the same rights as the hardware maker"
> > arguments are _totally_ bogus, they were made up after the fact, just
> > because quite apparently RMS had a fit ov
> Can you explain to me how it is that the Tivoization provisions (the
> only objection you have to GPLv3) conflict with this?
Is it really that hard to understand? GPLv2 applied only to works people
chose to place under that license or to works that contain so much code that
someone chose to pla
On Jun 14, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, with regard to TIVO, why are you saying that GPL shoudl affect
> their hardware
I'm not.
I'm just saying that TiVO, as a licensee of Linux, agreed that it
wouldn't impose further restrictions on recipients of Linux on the
exerci
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:42:44PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as
> >> > you
> >> > see f
> Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
> -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs,
> outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have
> the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even
> available
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tivo *respected* the freedoms, and gave source back, and gave you all the
> same rights you had to Linux originally, and to their modifications.
> How stupid are you to not acknowledge that?
> Tivo limited their *hardware*, not the so
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - I chose the GPLv2, fully understanding that the Tivo kind of
> situation is ok.
Wow, do you remember the date when you first thought of this business
model?
> And you are apparently totally unable to understand - or respect - that
Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> What the GPL *does* say is that you can't "add additional
>> restrictions to the license"
>
>Not quite. It's more general than that:
>
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted
On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you are not "entitled" to dictate the hardware's design (or any other
> copyrighted work's design),
Agreed.
> By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the
> license too:
On 06/14/2007 09:29 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
On 06/14/2007 06:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
It's totally pointless to try to "force" people to be good. That's like
"curing" gay people. Not going to happen.
Tangent, but that coul
On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you
>> > see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do
>> > with as
> What about if your GPL program ends up in a piece of hardware
> (e.g. a ROM,
> or an embedded ROM, or if it's some GPL code from OpenCores, as gate
> netlist in silicon)? My interpretation is that you need a permission from
> the author for doing that, unless there's an easy way to replace
> it
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:26:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Ah, well... In the case of "Windos" and other p
On 06/14/2007 02:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
No, by this twisted logic Tivo *cannot* modify that particular copy
any more than you can. They can modify *another* copy (just like you)
and they can *replace* the copy in your device with the new version
(unlike you).
Again, replacing is one
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:55:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> This "right to modify" and "have the same rights as the hardware maker"
> arguments are _totally_ bogus, they were made up after the fact, just
> because quite apparently RMS had a fit over Tivo and started this verbal
> (and legal)
On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled.
Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
-- the fac
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> They let you have the code and make changes to it,
Not to the software installed in the device.
What they do is like an author A who distributes a program to user B
under a non-Free Software license, and to user C under a Free Softwa
701 - 800 of 1070 matches
Mail list logo
