On 04-11-2007 01:04, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 12:14:15PM +, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote:
>> We've all seen the last flame war about Linux stealing BSD code. Due to
>> Theo's bad wording whole discussion rolled around the question about
>> legality of this, a big waste of t
> What I suppose is that people porting BSD code to Linux don't mean
> closing the doors for back-porting changes. They are simply unaware
> or forget about the possibility of dual licensing. Obviously, each
> submitter should read Documentation/SubmittingDrivers, where it is
&g
Theodore Tso wrote:
>> There are over four hundred C source files that mention BSD, but only
>> a hundred of them is dual licensed. Of course not all mentions of BSD
>> mean the file is derived from it, as well as not each such licensed file
>> must use the acronym. No matter what the scale reall
hoose the GPLv2 license, either for a
new driver or when they add Linux-specific glue code as part of a port
of a driver, are also making their own statement.
> What I propose is implementing a policy on accepting such code.
> According to it, every time a maintainer is considering a driver
&
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> It doesn't make sense in general. Being derived from *BSD may mean
> only a tiny fragment comes from *BSD. I can't see any valid reason
> to force/ask the author to publish his/her code under BSD
> (GPL + BSD = BSD) instead of GPLv2 as used by the whole Linux.
>
> There ar
Remigiusz Modrzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I propose is implementing a policy on accepting such code.
> According to it, every time a maintainer is considering a driver
> that is derived from BSD and licensed GPL-only, should request
> for dual licensing before a
hat people porting BSD code to Linux don't mean
closing the doors for back-porting changes. They are simply unaware
or forget about the possibility of dual licensing. Obviously, each
submitter should read Documentation/SubmittingDrivers, where it is
explicitly stated. Yet humans are prone to
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean:
> > not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
>
> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
Section 3a of the GP
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> However, if the site takes the sources out, you're still responsible
>> for providing sources to those who received the sources from you from
>> that point on. Or something like that, IANAL ;-)
> this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have the sources at that
> point if you were relying on the other site to host them.
You would then be violating the GPL, under any version. The GPL is quite
clear that being unable to comply with it means you do not get t
> On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva:
>
> >> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
> >> > mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
> >> > downl
> But thats YOURcompanyname.com. Not a third party. If you gave as a
> link somebodyelsescompany.com/gpl then somebodyelse could get rid of
> the link, and your offer wouldn't be valid for "at least three years"
>
> T
You mean it might not be valid for at least three years. It also might be.
You
On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva:
>> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
>> > mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
>> > download link.
>> Th
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless you are saying that the GPLv3 is saying that a third party link
now _is_ sufficiant.
Yup. The improvement in GPLv3 is to relax the requirement of
providing source code in physical medium if you choo
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> unless you are saying that the GPLv3 is saying that a third party link
> now _is_ sufficiant.
Yup. The improvement in GPLv3 is to relax the requirement of
providing source code in physical medium if you choose to not
distribute it along with the binari
"The source code for this product is available under the terms of the GPL
from the following web page http://www.mycompanyname.com/gpl";
This assumes that no special steps are needed to obtain the software from
that web page.
But thats YOURcompanyname.com. Not a third party. If you gave as a
li
Alexandre Oliva:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
> > mean: not
> > directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
>
> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
A lot of people se
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not
directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
FWIW,
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not
> directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
FWIW, it is one of the improvements in GPLv3.
--
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
> >
> > No, but that's besides the point.
>
> Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
>
> > You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be
>
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
> No, but that's besides the point.
Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
> You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be chaos.
That's not *quite* how it works
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
> includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
> theoretically accessible using the shipped kernel, but that nothing in
> the software available in the machine will let you get to. Further,
In the sense that he can decide to remove all contributions from
dissenting authors, yes, he does. But he can't impose his more lax
interpretation upon other authors. Under copyright, it's the more
yes, I saw my argument going weak as I wrote it, but what I said later:
So if you own a part o
On Jun 22, 2007, "Tomas Neme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The thing is, what matters in copyright and licencing matters is what
> the author of the code understands, no the licence's author, if
> ambiguous. And the kernel's rights holder is Linus.
Since he didn't get copyright assignments, each
powerful. It is pretty obvious that when Linus adopted GPLv2 he
didn't realize it reached that point. That when Tivo invented
Tivoization, he decided he wanted to permit this, and thus grants an
implicit additional permission for anyone to do it with his code,
doesn't mean other participants in
On Jun 21, 2007, at 15:19:35, Stephen Clark wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700 "David Schwartz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
statements nor instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits
Tivoization is
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
> >> understand why people who disagree with this stance chose GPLv2.
> >> Isn't "no further restrictions" clear enough?
> > everyone el
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
>>> disagree with you.
>>
>> For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
disagree with you.
For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
understand why people who disagree with this stan
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
> disagree with you.
For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
understand why people who disagree with this stance chose GPLv2.
Isn't "no further restriction
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
>>> opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
>>> licensee.
>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
network by only listening in, can you?
Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
>> network by only listening in, can you?
> Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be something that
> GPLv3 should prohibit.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
licensee.
It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
actually.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
Sorry, that's what happens when one types before gett
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to e
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> You can't use this code if you cooporate with anyone that requires
>> DRM systems.
> I think their earlier versions did say this.
Show me a GPLv3 draft that did it?
Start here, section 3:
http://gplv3.f
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
> opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
> licensee.
It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
actually. It's a lot about ma
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
> I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin Ame
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> Apparently the only restrictions ever permitted are the ones the FSF
> thinks of.
Where does this nonsensical idea come from? How does it follow that,
from FSF offering a licensing option to authors, you conclude that
nobody could ev
On Jun 21, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I went and made some comments on the draft, and they appear to no
> longer be there a few days later.
This would be very bad. Please let me know what they were about and
I'll try to figure out what happened.
Did you by any chance file
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
>> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
>> > statements nor
>> > instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
>>> certified,
>>
>> In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of th
David Schwartz wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
statements nor
instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization is
really and
truly absurd. It has ne
> So much for "Land of the free". :(
That was always just a typo. Its the Land of the Fee
-
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 a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you snippede the bit about not knowing how to stop it
I did? As far as I can tell I quoted it all. What did I miss?
they call the section the anti-tivoization, how much more exp
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
> > statements nor
> > instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization is
> > really and
> > truly absurd. It has neither a legal nor a m
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you snippede the bit about not knowing how to stop it
I did? As far as I can tell I quoted it all. What did I miss?
> they call the section the anti-tivoization, how much more explicit can
> they get?
They could be as explic
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:26:04AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the bios doesn't have enough capability to talk to the outside world for
updates.
Of course, although perhaps it could. More likely my thought was that
the service when it decides
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:26:04AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the bios doesn't have enough capability to talk to the outside world for
> updates.
Of course, although perhaps it could. More likely my thought was that
the service when it decides to download an update, would include the
upda
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 04:07:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The
wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
complete source code for it.
So how about this
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 04:07:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The
> wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
> complete source code for it.
So how about this idea then:
Tivo builds a kernel for their b
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:23:01AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> And then the user who uses such features in ways not permitted by the
> copyright holders are committing a crime. They can be prosecuted by
> the copyright holders and convicted of the crime.
Well we already clearly know the conte
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Tomas Neme wrote:
> as long as this right is not used by the software distributor to
> impose restrictions on the user's ability to adapt the software to
> their own needs. The GPLv3 paragraph above makes a fair concession in
> this regard, don't you agree?
no, one of
Alan Cox wrote:
You've made an important mistake. You said "their system". Now its "our
code" and "whoever bought the units' hardware" so it isn't their anything.
Yes, the hardware belongs to the user, and the software belongs to the Linux
community. However I think I wasn't 100% clear, I also
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate ne
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:56:33AM +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> Providing the changes back itself is a great thing altogether.
It also makes sense. If the changes are accepted back, the community at
large will keep the changes maintained. Less work for me to do when
going to newer code versions
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 05:52:40PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> > A patent prevents you from using the software in any way at all,
> > while a hardware restriction prevents you from using the software on
> > that particular hardware,
> as long as this right is not used by the software distributor to
> impose restrictions on the user's ability to adapt the software to
> their own needs. The GPLv3 paragraph above makes a fair concession in
> this regard, don't you agree?
no, one of the rules for the network is that the softwar
> > You've made an important mistake. You said "their system". Now its "our
> > code" and "whoever bought the units' hardware" so it isn't their anything.
>
> Yes, the hardware belongs to the user, and the software belongs to the Linux
> community. However I think I wasn't 100% clear, I also me
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The kernel you build from the source code that Tivo distributes must
> > be accepted by Tivo's hardware without making other modifications (to
> > Tivo's hardware or bootloader). If that is possible, I will retr
Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
running short.
[...]
So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> asking a device that's running software that you haven't verified to give
> you a checksum of itself isn't going to work becouse the software can just
> lie to you.
>
I don't think there is any way I _could_ make a device if it h
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:14 -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
> []
>> Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
>> modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
>
> Or it might be modified to fix a bug - either a technical one or
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:14 -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
[]
> Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
> modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
Or it might be modified to fix a bug - either a technical one or a legal
one as described below.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> what sort of signal can the network controller send that couldn't be
> forged by the OS?
>
> how would you do this where the device is a receiver on the netwoek
> (such as a satellite receiver)
just for the question on the HOWTO (not on anything else)
You can easily h
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of the
network on the network controller itself, I suppose.
how
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frankly, I haven't checked the licenses on the software. I'd suggest
going to www.tivo.com/linux and download all the source for all the
different versions there.
Yeah, thanks, I remembered someone had post
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
> certified,
In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of the
network on the network controller itself, I suppose.
Not that you should disable the network controlle
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> frankly, I haven't checked the licenses on the software. I'd suggest
> going to www.tivo.com/linux and download all the source for all the
> different versions there.
Yeah, thanks, I remembered someone had posted that URL the second
after a hit Send :-(
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:28:22PM +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
>> Well, it is not Tivo alone -- look at http://aminocom.com/ for an
>> example. If you want the kernel sources pay USD 50k and we will provide
>> the kernel sources, was their attitude.
>
> Hmm, set top boxes
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate network sessions?
And note,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
the signature is completely independant.
Well, t
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
> accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate network sessions?
And note, "it's been tampered with" is not necessarily
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
>>> the signature is completely independant.
>>
>> Well, then remove or otherwise mangl
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:28:22PM +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> Well, it is not Tivo alone -- look at http://aminocom.com/ for an
> example. If you want the kernel sources pay USD 50k and we will provide
> the kernel sources, was their attitude.
Hmm, set top boxes are often rented from the cable c
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 20, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, I don't see how
On Jun 20, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It allows everybody do make that choice that I consider to be really
> important: the choice of how something _you_ designed gets used.
> And it does that exactly by *limiting* the license to only that one work.
> Not trying to extend
On Jun 20, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your analysis stopped at the downside of prohibiting tivoization. You
>> didn't analyze the potential upsides,
> Maybe that's because I don't really see any up sides.
You do:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> We already know the vendor doesn't care about the user, so why should
>> we take this into account when analyzing the reasoning of the vendor?
> no, we don't know this. you attribute the reason for the lock
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> However, I don't see
On Jun 20, 2007, "Tomas Neme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > However, I don't see how this would ever require a company like Tivo
>> > or Mastercard to have their networks play nice with a unit that has
>> > been modified by the end user, potentially opening up some serious
>> > security holes.
>
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
It is the duty of the FSF to defend these freedoms. It's its public
mission. That's a publicly stated goal of the GPL, for anyone who
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
the signature is completely independant.
Well, then remove or otherwise mangle the signature in the disk of
your TiVo DVR and see at what
On Jun 20, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A key is a number. A signature is a number.
And a program is a number.
http://asdf.org/~fatphil/maths/illegal.html
Your point?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>> if the GPL can excercise control over compilations, then if Oracle
>>> were to ship a Oracle Linux live CD that contained the Oracle Database
>>> in the filesystem image, ready to run. then
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
> the signature is completely independant.
Well, then remove or otherwise mangle the signature in the disk of
your TiVo DVR and see at what point the boot-up process halts.
--
Alexan
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if the GPL can excercise control over compilations, then if Oracle
were to ship a Oracle Linux live CD that contained the Oracle Database
in the filesystem image, ready to run. then the GPL would be able to
control the Oracle
On Jun 20, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then
> tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron.
Yeah, it is indeed possible to twist it such that it sounds bad.
The important point is that one's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> if the GPL can excercise control over compilations, then if Oracle
> were to ship a Oracle Linux live CD that contained the Oracle Database
> in the filesystem image, ready to run. then the GPL would be able to
> control the Oracle Database code.
By copyright law, it c
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
David Schwartz writes:
However, compilations (even to the extent they are creative
combinations) are not necessarily derivative works of their elements.
For more details, see
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#compilations
Because compilation
David Schwartz writes:
>> There is a lot of grey and/or arguable area about what constitutes a
>> GPL-encumbered collective work versus mere aggregation.
>
> I think it's technically/legally clear what the standards are, but certainly
> arguable whether particular works meet that standard. If the
> I believe compilation copyrights do bear on GPL-licensed software, by
> virtue of the GPL's sentence "[...] rather, the intent is to exercise
> the right to control the distribution of derivative _or collective_
> works based on the Program." (emphasis added).
Ahh, good. So there's no problem w
David Schwartz writes:
>> However, compilations (even to the extent they are creative
>> combinations) are not necessarily derivative works of their elements.
>> For more details, see
>> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#compilations
>
> Because compilation copyrights don't really affect
> By "creative combination" do you mean what US copyright law refers to
> as compilations (or their subset collective works)?
Not only. By "creative combination" I mean either a compilation or a
derivative work. I was a bit unclear about that because I wasn't really
addressing compilation rights
David Schwartz writes:
>> Most of this list has
>> already dismissed your rather unique -- I would even say frivolous --
>> idea of how far "mere aggregation" goes: I, for one, have better
>> things to do than explain why a C file is not a "mere aggregation" of
>> the functions it contains.)
>>
>>
On 6/20/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm about this far to Linus'izing my wording and calling you stupid,
> hypocrite, or bullshitter
Knock yourself out, it will no doubt lend much moral and logic weight
to your rhetoric.
I mig
On 6/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm about this far to Linus'izing my wording and calling you stupid,
hypocrite, or bullshitter
Knock yourself out, it will no doubt lend much moral and logic weight
to your rhetoric.
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
> Most of this list has
> already dismissed your rather unique -- I would even say frivolous --
> idea of how far "mere aggregation" goes: I, for one, have better
> things to do than explain why a C file is not a "mere aggregation" of
> the functions it contains.)
>
> Michael Poole
Of course it'
1 - 100 of 1082 matches
Mail list logo
