Alan Cox wrote:
Secondly GPLv3 will cause companies like TIVO, router companies, security
companies to not adopt Linux as an operating system, because they can't secure
their system. Placing code in a ROM so they can't upgrade their own systems is
You've made an important mistake. You said
Michael Poole wrote:
> Tomas Neme writes:
>
>> I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
>> what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
>> deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
>> They made a design, they build a
It's simple: they don't provide _complete_ source code. They keep the
source code for the part of their Linux kernel images that provides
the functionality "runs on Tivo DVRs". The GPL requires that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization does not agree that this is
the problem but rather
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Michael Poole wrote:
Tomas Neme writes:
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They
Tomas Neme writes:
> I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
> what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
> deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
> They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and
>
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and
provide source code for
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Neuer 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.
>
> One might say the same thing about someone who claims not to have a
> moral right to force certain
On 19/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread how you can
> follow the GPLv3 by making the TECHNICALLY INFERIOR choice of using a ROM
> instead of using a flash
On 6/20/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To call people who draw the line in
> a different place than you hypocrites is BS.
Very poor example. In many parts of the world "Just quit" is "just starve
to death".
So please DON'T equate the two. Tivo is a minor control argument about a
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Yes. How does this relate with the piece of the argument I've
> proposed so far, or the whole argument I've posted before?
>
> Answer: It doesn't. At all. You're just showing you didn't
> understand the argument. Which shows
> constraints it's valid for a copyright holder to try to enforce w/ a
> license -- I think it's immoral for an employer to force an employee
> to toil at a meaningless, soul-crushing job for the vast majority of
> one's single, short existence if they could make it more enjoyable,
> but I'd hate
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:27 -0500, Andrew McKay wrote:
> I'm not going to address whether GPLv3 changed the spirit of GPLv2, but
> saying
> that licensing the Linux Kernel under GPLv3 will result in more contributions
> is
> absolute BS.
Is there a system in place that sort of keeps track?
On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But they do have the right to make their own choices, and try their own
strategies. And people shouldn't complain about that. If somebody doesn't
like the Tivo box, and the Tivo service requirements, just don't *buy* the
damn thing, and
> Secondly GPLv3 will cause companies like TIVO, router companies, security
> companies to not adopt Linux as an operating system, because they can't
> secure
> their system. Placing code in a ROM so they can't upgrade their own systems
> is
You've made an important mistake. You said "their
No, I'm not. You can say tivoization is *good* however much you like.
This doesn't dispute in any way my claim that no tivoization would be
*better*, that you'd get contributions from the people that, because
of tivoization, don't feel compelled to develop and contribute,
because they can't use
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > You do realize that Tivo makes all their money on the service, don't you?
> > The actual hardware they basically give away at cost, exactly to get the
> > service contracts. Not exactly a very unusual strategy in the
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> b) the manufacturer is able to update the device _in_ _the_ _field_.
> Sure, it would be more costly, but it's not like the
> law (or the agreements in place) *mandate* tivoization.
>
The sad part is that the FCC, especially, are pretty fond of doing
exactly that.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:12:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Aah, good question. Here's what the draft says about this:
>
> Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no
> transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
>
> The requirements as to "installation information"
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:52:38AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> What it does is impose conditions for whoever wants to distribute the
> software. And GPLv3 makes it explicit that one such condition is to
> permit the user to install and run modified versions of the program in
> the hardware
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> If the bug is in the non-GPLed BIOS, not in the GPLed code, too bad.
> One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.
Maybe the Tivo only loading signed kernels is a bug in their bios. :)
> The freedom the GPL defends is not the
On 6/20/07, SL Baur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/19/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux was a tool for UNIX sysadmins and admin wannabes to
> practice their UNIX chops at home - or a conveniently inexpensive
> platform on which to run Apache. Companies -- other than Linux
>
Linus Torvalds 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 that your end user was a lazy bum and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Scott Preece wrote:
> >> On 6/19/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Tivo didn't make the Linux success. More Tivos can definitely undo
> it.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think so.
> >>>
> >>>
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:11:24 -0400
"Dave Neuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > it was the ability of the linux kernel to adapt to vastly different
> > hardware (including embeded hardware) that made Linux what it is today.
>
> Which
Alan Cox 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.
>
> GPLv2 deals with that case, and they can (and should) be sued for it
> [except that US
On 6/19/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It was Apache. Apache showed corporate users and small businesses
desperate to cash in on the Interweb c. 1995-1998 ...
Right time period ...
Linux was a tool for UNIX sysadmins and admin wannabes to
practice their UNIX chops at home - or a
Sure, but was it Linux in embedded devices that made Linux what it is today,
or was it GNU/Linux?
No, it was the fact that Linux has always been able to run on garbage.
My introduction to Linux was in 1995 when I was given a network
of computers made out of back-laboratory garbage and US$0
On Jun 20, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The freedom to "run the program, for any purpose" is just as much
> violated by Microsoft when they make the Xbox.
That's correct.
> You can't run the Linux kernel on that either, for the exact same
> reasons you can't run a
> Much as I hate to extend the life of this execrable thread, since I
> think Alexandre makes Sisyphus look like a hard-nosed pragmatist, it
> seems pretty clear that TiVO impinges "[my] freedom to run the
> program, for any purpose" if "any purpose" includes "make my TiVO do
> what I want," and
Much as I hate to extend the life of this execrable thread, since I
think Alexandre makes Sisyphus look like a hard-nosed pragmatist, it
seems pretty clear that TiVO impinges [my] freedom to run the
program, for any purpose if any purpose includes make my TiVO do
what I want, and likewise to
On Jun 20, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose is just as much
violated by Microsoft when they make the Xbox.
That's correct.
You can't run the Linux kernel on that either, for the exact same
reasons you can't run a modified Linux
Sure, but was it Linux in embedded devices that made Linux what it is today,
or was it GNU/Linux?
No, it was the fact that Linux has always been able to run on garbage.
My introduction to Linux was in 1995 when I was given a network
of computers made out of back-laboratory garbage and US$0
On 6/19/07, Dave Neuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was Apache. Apache showed corporate users and small businesses
desperate to cash in on the Interweb c. 1995-1998 ...
Right time period ...
Linux was a tool for UNIX sysadmins and admin wannabes to
practice their UNIX chops at home - or a
Alan Cox 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.
GPLv2 deals with that case, and they can (and should) be sued for it
[except that US copyright
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:11:24 -0400
Dave Neuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it was the ability of the linux kernel to adapt to vastly different
hardware (including embeded hardware) that made Linux what it is today.
Which is why NetBSD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
Scott Preece wrote:
On 6/19/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Tivo didn't make the Linux success. More Tivos can definitely undo
it.
I don't think so.
First, it's not Linux that made
Linus Torvalds 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 that your end user was a lazy bum and
On 6/20/07, SL Baur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07, Dave Neuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux was a tool for UNIX sysadmins and admin wannabes to
practice their UNIX chops at home - or a conveniently inexpensive
platform on which to run Apache. Companies -- other than Linux
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If the bug is in the non-GPLed BIOS, not in the GPLed code, too bad.
One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.
Maybe the Tivo only loading signed kernels is a bug in their bios. :)
The freedom the GPL defends is not the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:52:38AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
What it does is impose conditions for whoever wants to distribute the
software. And GPLv3 makes it explicit that one such condition is to
permit the user to install and run modified versions of the program in
the hardware that
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:12:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Aah, good question. Here's what the draft says about this:
Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no
transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
The requirements as to installation information apply to
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
b) the manufacturer is able to update the device _in_ _the_ _field_.
Sure, it would be more costly, but it's not like the
law (or the agreements in place) *mandate* tivoization.
The sad part is that the FCC, especially, are pretty fond of doing
exactly that. This
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Helge Hafting wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
You do realize that Tivo makes all their money on the service, don't you?
The actual hardware they basically give away at cost, exactly to get the
service contracts. Not exactly a very unusual strategy in the high-tech
No, I'm not. You can say tivoization is *good* however much you like.
This doesn't dispute in any way my claim that no tivoization would be
*better*, that you'd get contributions from the people that, because
of tivoization, don't feel compelled to develop and contribute,
because they can't use
Secondly GPLv3 will cause companies like TIVO, router companies, security
companies to not adopt Linux as an operating system, because they can't
secure
their system. Placing code in a ROM so they can't upgrade their own systems
is
You've made an important mistake. You said their
On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But they do have the right to make their own choices, and try their own
strategies. And people shouldn't complain about that. If somebody doesn't
like the Tivo box, and the Tivo service requirements, just don't *buy* the
damn thing, and don't
constraints it's valid for a copyright holder to try to enforce w/ a
license -- I think it's immoral for an employer to force an employee
to toil at a meaningless, soul-crushing job for the vast majority of
one's single, short existence if they could make it more enjoyable,
but I'd hate to
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:27 -0500, Andrew McKay wrote:
I'm not going to address whether GPLv3 changed the spirit of GPLv2, but
saying
that licensing the Linux Kernel under GPLv3 will result in more contributions
is
absolute BS.
Is there a system in place that sort of keeps track?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yes. How does this relate with the piece of the argument I've
proposed so far, or the whole argument I've posted before?
Answer: It doesn't. At all. You're just showing you didn't
understand the argument. Which shows why I
On 6/20/07, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To call people who draw the line in
a different place than you hypocrites is BS.
Very poor example. In many parts of the world Just quit is just starve
to death.
So please DON'T equate the two. Tivo is a minor control argument about a
silly
On 19/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread how you can
follow the GPLv3 by making the TECHNICALLY INFERIOR choice of using a ROM
instead of using a flash device.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Neuer 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.
One might say the same thing about someone who claims not to have a
moral right to force certain choices on others
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and
provide source code for
Tomas Neme writes:
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and
Michael Poole wrote:
Tomas Neme writes:
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a design, they build a machine, they
It's simple: they don't provide _complete_ source code. They keep the
source code for the part of their Linux kernel images that provides
the functionality runs on Tivo DVRs. The GPL requires that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization does not agree that this is
the problem but rather TiVo
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Michael Poole wrote:
Tomas Neme writes:
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They
Alan Cox wrote:
Secondly GPLv3 will cause companies like TIVO, router companies, security
companies to not adopt Linux as an operating system, because they can't secure
their system. Placing code in a ROM so they can't upgrade their own systems is
You've made an important mistake. You said
On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Neuer 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.
One might say the same thing about someone who claims not to have
Tomas Neme writes:
It's simple: they don't provide _complete_ source code. They keep the
source code for the part of their Linux kernel images that provides
the functionality runs on Tivo DVRs. The GPL requires that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization does not agree that this is
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this is very much NOT true. if you take the source the provide you can
compile a kernel that will run on the tivo, the only thing you have to
do (on some models) is to change the bios to skip the step that checks
if the kernel has been tampered with.
If we are
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
Tomas Neme writes:
It's simple: they don't provide _complete_ source code. They keep the
source code for the part of their Linux kernel images that provides
the functionality runs on Tivo DVRs. The GPL requires that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
code.
Why not? The digital signature is a statement (which translates
roughly to Tivo approves this) to be used in a computer in
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this is very much NOT true. if you take the source the provide you can
compile a kernel that will run on the tivo, the only thing you have to
do (on some models) is to change the bios to skip the step that checks
if the
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
code.
Why not? The digital signature is a statement (which translates
roughly to
Tomas Neme writes:
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this is very much NOT true. if you take the source the provide you can
compile a kernel that will run on the tivo, the only thing you have to
do (on some models) is to change the bios to skip the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
code.
Why not? The digital signature is a statement
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 retract
what I said. If it is not possible, they are omitting part of the
program's source
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this is very much NOT true. if you take the source the provide you can
compile a kernel that will run on the tivo, the only thing you have to
do (on some
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
code.
Why
A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
a certain result.
-- US Code, Title 17, Section 101
so?
Not GPL related, but casino machine software that needs to be approved
by the casino
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel
But some would argue that it's part of the source with which the
binary is derived (only a court could meaningfully decide if they're
right).
and the code that checks the
signature is
Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and
even less make sense.
plus, and I repeat myself.. the program comes with no warranties whatsoever.
and if your complains are purely moral, see it this way: if TiVo
didn't sign their kernel, digital cable providers wouldn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
Please retract that claim. I have said no such thing, and have
avoided saying anything that I thought might be misconstrued in that
direction.
To be absolutely clear: My complaints with Tivo as a hardware or BIOS
vendor
On Jun 20, 2007, Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Cox 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.
GPLv2 deals with that case, and they can
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If the bug is in the non-GPLed BIOS, not in the GPLed code, too bad.
One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.
Maybe the Tivo only loading signed kernels is a bug
Tomas Neme writes:
A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
a certain result.
-- US Code, Title 17, Section 101
so?
People keep arguing that the signature is somehow not part of the
On 18/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
no tivoization = more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:25 -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Tomas Neme writes:
A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
a certain result.
-- US Code, Title 17, Section 101
so?
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:52:38AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Why should restrictions through patents be unacceptable, but
restrictions through hardware and software be acceptable.
Both are means to disrespect users' freedoms.
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:12:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Aah, good question. Here's what the draft says about this:
Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no
transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
On Jun 20, 2007, H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
b) the manufacturer is able to update the device _in_ _the_ _field_.
Sure, it would be more costly, but it's not like the
law (or the agreements in place) *mandate* tivoization.
The sad part is that the FCC,
On Jun 20, 2007, Andrew McKay [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.
Which is why the
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
cares to understand it, or miss it completely and
On Jun 20, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread how you can
follow the GPLv3 by making the TECHNICALLY INFERIOR
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to
match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction)
Vendor doesn't care about tivoizing,
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.
Which is why the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated.
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 this would ever require a company like Tivo
or Mastercard to have their networks play nice with a unit
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread how you can
follow
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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,
1) It may be far more likely that in the majority of cases it will be
modified with the intent to allow
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, Andrew McKay [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
[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 this would ever require a company like Tivo
or Mastercard to have
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.
Why are you not complaining that Linus does not distribute the keys he uses
to sign kernel source distributions? If a digital
On 6/20/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomas Neme writes:
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a
David Schwartz writes:
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.
Why are you not complaining that Linus does not distribute the keys he uses
to sign kernel source
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 it, and only the GPL allows them to.
Why does the
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's not mere
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
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 might not
201 - 300 of 2135 matches
Mail list logo
