On Jun 18, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really, Tivo could simply sell you a box without any installed
software.
Yes.
The actual software is mailed to you on a credit card sized
ROM when you activate service.
If that's a separate transaction, then yes, I believe it would
On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.
Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisions are
*the* objectionable issue about GPLv3 for those of you who
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually you are in error here. You are saying More home users == More
Developers when the ratio of home users to developers isn't all that high.
(small set of facts: Hacker == Developer (in most cases, where the term,
as defined in
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:08 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
> > > modification?
> >
> > You have to ask the copyright holder.
> >
> > Affero did
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 14:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you argue that it is evil for tivo to produce a pice of hardware that they
> can modify and the user can't
>
> but you then argue that it's a good thing for the FSF to produce a license
> that they can modify and others can't
They
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 23:19 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
>
> Wow!
>
> Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
> modification?
>
>
> Thanks for being GPL!
>
> --
> Al
>
If the GPL2 were itself modifiable, there would be so many GPL licenses
that the term "Relased
On Jun 17, 2007, Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Open source licenses shouldn't forbid usages, not even the blatantly
> unethical ones, "evil" is not tangible (I guess everything would be
> easier in life if it was).
Since you mention Open source...
What if I showed you that
Once upon a time, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> To be fair here, this could also be accomplished by having to flip a
> physical switch on the router, especially if you did something funky
> like:
>
> [---] push this button for a 5 minute access pass to upload new
> software
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> /me hands Linus a mirror
> "I'm a damn handsome dude, ain't I?"
Heh. I beg to differ ;-)
>> Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
> You're talking about something totally
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
>> > modification?
>>
>> You have to ask the copyright holder.
>>
>> Affero did just
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:58:40PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> The reason is that if there ever is a security hole in the routing
> engine software (FreeBSD kernel, OpenSSH, etc.), it would be a really
> bad thing if crackers could load arbitrary software (rootkits, spam
> software, etc.) directly
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
>> computers => more users make useful
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:58:40PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >Let's say I'm the owner of a company selling some device that uses a
> >GPLv2 OS and some GPLv2 applications to do the job. Let's say that for
> >some reason I don't want the
> > In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
> > rule changes is a bit impractical
>
> Indeed. But that's not a legal requirement, it's an economic reason.
Cynical Economists would argue 'legal requirements' are just changes to
the cost of the various economic
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:46:44PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so
> you are better off without tivoization.
Your perception is quite flawed.
I see where you come from, I know your intentions are absolutely
genuine, but there's
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never
> > said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole
> > point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND!
>
> Yes. And this was precisely what
On Jun 17, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you argue that it is evil for tivo to produce a pice of hardware that
> they can modify and the user can't
s/evil/unethical/, because I understand that denying people the
ability to enjoy the four freedoms of Free Software is unethical, and
accepting
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
>>
>> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
>> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.
> In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
> > modification?
>
> You have to ask the copyright holder.
>
> Affero did just that, and so the Affero GPL was born.
>
> Just don't assume the
Once upon a time, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Let's say I'm the owner of a company selling some device that uses a
>GPLv2 OS and some GPLv2 applications to do the job. Let's say that for
>some reason I don't want the end users of my device to tinker with the
>software inside my device.
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
computers => more users make useful modifications => more
contributions in kind
?
Sure, there's a downside
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:07 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
[...]
> However, as Ingo argued, not being able to patch holes, fix bugs and
> add new features is a very bad idea. He was talking about the
> software, but this is as true when it comes to the license.
Yes, but the license of the license
> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
>
> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.
In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
rule changes is a bit impractical
>
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Gabor Czigola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lkml
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 15:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 15:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, "Gabor Czigola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
>> > an own GPL draft (say v2.2)
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> Okay. So they give everyone the right to change the software on the box, but
> on connection replace the modified stuff with the official versions. Is that
> still a copyright problem? Absolutely, positively no. Is the current
> situation any different? Not that I can
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>>
>> > In the USSA it is arguable that
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
> modification?
You have to ask the copyright holder.
Affero did just that, and so the Affero GPL was born.
Just don't assume the FSF will grant such permissions
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay. So they give everyone the right to change the software on the
> box, but on connection replace the modified stuff with the official
> versions.
If I haven't modified it so as to stop them from doing so on my
computer, that is
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> One more time, I'm not talking about the license (the legal terms).
> Ok. Then go away.
> Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
That's false, and the reason I know it is
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 15:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, "Gabor Czigola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
> > an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and that includes
> > some ideas (from v3)
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, "Gabor Czigola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
> > an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and that includes
> > some ideas (from v3) that are considered as good (free,
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
> > software) for certain
On Sunday 17 June 2007 15:32:34 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
> >> between communication standards and copyright
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
>>
>> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
>> love about v2, and
On Sunday 17 June 2007 14:46:05 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> >> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> >> > connect a device to their server (and this is an
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
>> What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
>> between communication standards and copyright licenses?
> I don't. I was *REPEATING* an example of how TiVO has a
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> One more time, I'm not talking about the license (the legal terms).
Ok. Then go away.
Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
The "legal terms" is the only reason a license *exists*. That's what a
license *is*, for crying out loud!
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
>
> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
> love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?
You apparently do not
On Jun 17, 2007, "Gabor Czigola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
> an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and that includes
> some ideas (from v3) that are considered as good (free, innovative, in
> the spirit of
On Jun 17, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:17:57AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Just make the tivoization machinery require two keys: one that the
>> vendor keeps, one that the vendor gives to the user (maybe without
>> ever knowing it). Neither one
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
>> Daniel Hazelton writes:
>> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
>> > connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
>> > how TiVO devices actually connect)
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
>>> *agree* on the "spirit".
>>
>> They don't have to.
>>
>> Just like
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
> In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
> software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
> tamperproof to random end consumers).
But this is not
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > it is a false statement on your part that the executable "does not
>> > function properly" if it lacks that part. Try it:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> > connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
> > how TiVO devices actually connect) but the network being
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 05:42 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Which shows you don't understand the notion of "spirit of license" (as
> opposed to intent of licensing, which I AFAIK invented today to try to
> dispell this confusion), and that the fact that the letter of the
> license doesn't have
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 10:29:57AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Gabor Czigola wrote:
> >I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
> >an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and that includes
> >some ideas (from v3) that are
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Gabor Czigola wrote:
Hello!
I didn't follow the whole thread from the beginning, but I see that
there are pros and cons for both versions of GPL.
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and
Hello!
I didn't follow the whole thread from the beginning, but I see that
there are pros and cons for both versions of GPL.
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is "as free as v2" and that includes
some ideas (from v3) that are
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:17:57AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Just make the tivoization machinery require two keys: one that the
> vendor keeps, one that the vendor gives to the user (maybe without
> ever knowing it). Neither one can install modifications alone, but
> the user can approve
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
>> *agree* on the "spirit".
>
> They don't have to.
>
> Just like nobody but you can tell why you chose the GPLv2, nobody but
> RMS
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to connect
> a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know how TiVO
> devices actually connect) but the network being connected to has a single
> owner who can set such terms.
>
>
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 08:10:53PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> This is where we started. The same way you seem to think that "freedom"
> has only the meaning *you* and the FSF give it, and that somehow the
> spirit of the GPL includes the "four freedoms" that aren't even
> _mentioned_ in it.
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The second:
> I buy a DSL modem. Until I want to actually connect to the internet it can
> have whatever settings I want it to have. The second I want to connect to the
> internet it has to be configured the way that the ISP wants.
But only those
Ingo Molnar writes:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > it is a false statement on your part that the executable "does not
>> > function properly" if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk
>> > from the
> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
tamperproof to random end consumers). Obviously an electronics graduate
can tamper with hardware ones just as well
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > it is a false statement on your part that the executable "does not
> > function properly" if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk
> > from the Tivo (it's a bog standard
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, as a reminder, this point was presented to you (see the
> quotes above), in the discussion about whether the Tivo is fine by
> the GPLv2 or not:
That's false. I've explicitly avoided discussions on whether the
legal terms of GPLv2
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:58:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> >
> > No, I'm arguing that it's not "mere aggregation" - the kernel is useless
> > on that machine unless the BIOS is present or replaced with something
> > else with equivalent
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software
>> > modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make
>> > the software unmodifiable (which advances
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
>> >>> GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> It is also clear, thanks to language directly in the GPLv2
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:38:43AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ah, but giving the user half the key doesn't mean they still don't have
> > access
> > to the entire key. QED: Giving people half the key won't cut it under the
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The intent of the GPL, as seen by the FSF, *DOESN'T* *MATTER* *AT* *ALL* when
> the software isn't licensed by the FSF. Or did you forget that part of the
> discussion?
You're mixing up spirit of license with intent of licensing (or
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:58:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> >
> > No, I'm arguing that it's not "mere aggregation" - the kernel is useless
> > on that machine unless the BIOS is present or replaced with something
> > else with equivalent
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software
> > modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make
> > the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom not at all) or to
> > use software under a
* Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
> >>> GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that
> >>> the FSF's president does not like.
> >>>
>
On Sunday 17 June 2007 02:27:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> >>
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
>> >
>> >
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
No. You've
On Sunday 17 June 2007 02:27:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I've already
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that
the FSF's president does not like.
That's not true.
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software
modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make
the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom not at all) or to
use software under a different license
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:58:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
No, I'm arguing that it's not mere aggregation - the kernel is useless
on that machine unless the BIOS is present or replaced with something
else with equivalent functionality.
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The intent of the GPL, as seen by the FSF, *DOESN'T* *MATTER* *AT* *ALL* when
the software isn't licensed by the FSF. Or did you forget that part of the
discussion?
You're mixing up spirit of license with intent of licensing (or
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:38:43AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, but giving the user half the key doesn't mean they still don't have
access
to the entire key. QED: Giving people half the key won't cut it under the
GPLv3
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is also clear, thanks to language directly in the GPLv2
itself, that there
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that
the
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software
modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make
the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom not
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:58:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
No, I'm arguing that it's not mere aggregation - the kernel is useless
on that machine unless the BIOS is present or replaced with something
else with equivalent functionality.
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, as a reminder, this point was presented to you (see the
quotes above), in the discussion about whether the Tivo is fine by
the GPLv2 or not:
That's false. I've explicitly avoided discussions on whether the
legal terms of GPLv2
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is a false statement on your part that the executable does not
function properly if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk
from the Tivo (it's a bog standard IDE harddisk),
I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
tamperproof to random end consumers). Obviously an electronics graduate
can tamper with hardware ones just as well
Ingo Molnar writes:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is a false statement on your part that the executable does not
function properly if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk
from the Tivo (it's a bog
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The second:
I buy a DSL modem. Until I want to actually connect to the internet it can
have whatever settings I want it to have. The second I want to connect to the
internet it has to be configured the way that the ISP wants.
But only those
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 08:10:53PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
This is where we started. The same way you seem to think that freedom
has only the meaning *you* and the FSF give it, and that somehow the
spirit of the GPL includes the four freedoms that aren't even
_mentioned_ in it.
THAT
Daniel Hazelton writes:
But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to connect
a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know how TiVO
devices actually connect) but the network being connected to has a single
owner who can set such terms.
I'll
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
*agree* on the spirit.
They don't have to.
Just like nobody but you can tell why you chose the GPLv2, nobody but
RMS can tell why he
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:17:57AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Just make the tivoization machinery require two keys: one that the
vendor keeps, one that the vendor gives to the user (maybe without
ever knowing it). Neither one can install modifications alone, but
the user can approve
Hello!
I didn't follow the whole thread from the beginning, but I see that
there are pros and cons for both versions of GPL.
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free as v2 and that includes
some ideas (from v3) that are
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Gabor Czigola wrote:
Hello!
I didn't follow the whole thread from the beginning, but I see that
there are pros and cons for both versions of GPL.
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free as v2 and
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 10:29:57AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Gabor Czigola wrote:
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free as v2 and that includes
some ideas (from v3) that are considered as good
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 05:42 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Which shows you don't understand the notion of spirit of license (as
opposed to intent of licensing, which I AFAIK invented today to try to
dispell this confusion), and that the fact that the letter of the
license doesn't have bearing
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
Daniel Hazelton writes:
But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
how TiVO devices actually connect) but the network being connected to
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is a false statement on your part that the executable does not
function properly if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
tamperproof to random end consumers).
But this is not
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
*agree* on the spirit.
They don't have to.
Just like nobody but you can
Daniel Hazelton writes:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
Daniel Hazelton writes:
But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
how TiVO devices actually connect) but the
On Jun 17, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:17:57AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Just make the tivoization machinery require two keys: one that the
vendor keeps, one that the vendor gives to the user (maybe without
ever knowing it). Neither one can
601 - 700 of 2135 matches
Mail list logo
