company the
>> software wherever it goes.
> No more than having to be 'root' to load a kernel module. You are free to
> remove it from any hardware for which you have the right to choose what
> software runs.
Yup. And I get that right (because the distributor must not stop me)
when I recei
cases you mentioned), that's bad for
the user, no doubt. And bad for the community as well.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evange
st make this a bit more inconvenient, such that
vendors that have the option respect users' freedoms, and those that
find it too inconvenient respect the wishes of users who don't want
their software turned non-free.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin Am
ratch their itches => fewer
contributions from these users
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To
TiVo boxes.
How many thousand employees does TiVo have working on Linux?
(I realize a full-time employee is a lot more than a Joe Random
Hacker, but still, I'm keeping a ratio of 100:1 to make up for that)
> PS: I've beaten the addiction!
Good for you!
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd
s to be enough. Software patents are
not the only stupid law that harms Free Software :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [
project you have
> to use GPLv3. For some projects, like the Linux Kernel, the upgrade
> is impossible to accomplish.
Impossible is a bit too strong. I understand it would take a huge
amount of work though, so I sympathize with "it wouldn't be worth it",
even if, in my scale of moral va
restrictions, and the
provisions to combat the practice of adding restrictions on top of the
GPL and claiming the software is available under the GPL, which has
made for a lot of confusion over time.
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
>> >
>> >
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
>> tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization
>> is b
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> GPLv
On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> So your claim is that a user's possibility to scratch her own itches
>> makes no difference whatsoever as to their amount of contributions she
>> is
On Jun 19, 2007, "Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alexandre,
> On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dispute this:
>>
>> non-tivoized hardware => users can scratch their itches => more
>> contribution
right holder to adopt the GPLv3. Any
claims to the contrary are emotional reactions to peer pressure, which
very clearly exists, since there are indeed numerous people who want
to advance their goals and would like to use the GPLv3 as a tool.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unica
On Jun 19, 2007, Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-06-18 21:50:12, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Given the ROM exception in GPLv3, I guess you could seal and
>> anti-tamper it as much as you want, and leave the ROM at such a place
>> in wh
On Jun 19, 2007, Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 19 Juni 2007 04:46 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
>> The distrust for the FSF led to this very short-sighted decision of
>> painting the Linux community into a corner from which it is very
>> unlike
ces of hardware is *TOTALLY* alien to the spirit of
> the GPL.
I agree. That's the bug in GPLv2 that the anti-tivoization provision
is trying to fix.
> The GPL was always about equal rights to use the software in any
> hardware.
Exactly. Thank you. It finally sank in, it seems.
--
A
ming that tivos can't being modified
> it's really not that hard to change.
But is it legal?
How many would contribute changes to a list where there are TiVo
people watching, which might expose these contributors to liabilities?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
end up better off.
Or so I believe ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe f
On Jun 19, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:40:59AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > The actual software is mailed to you on a credit card sized
>> > ROM when you activate service.
> ...
>> The GPLv3 won't remove eve
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I realise that the latest GPLv3 draft would not pose restrictions
>>> here, as such devices would not
e hardware is no different.
For any hardware on which I can run the software, I'm a user there,
and I'm entitled to the rights granted by the license.
It's really this simple. Don't complicate the issue by trying to make
hardware special. It's just an illusion to try to convince yourself
that you can depr
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, 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 car
On Jun 19, 2007, "Dave Neuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But it takes only a small fraction of the tivoizers to decide to take
>> out the locks, when faced with the costs mentioned above, for us to
&g
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> You're losing all that.
> based on the knowledge shown by these users you aren't loosing much.
Remember, the sample is biased, the hackers who'd like to hack it are
less likely to buy it, an
would be useful as a boundary condition.
So just disregard that.
Is there agreement that, comparing tivoized and non-tivoized hardware,
we get'd more contributions if the hardware is not tivoized, because
users can scratch their own itches, than we would for tivoized
hardware?
--
Alexandre Oli
ns on users' freedoms as to GPLed software once
you've (implicitly) accepted the conditions of the license.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software E
ut relicensing, and then the "impossibilities" of doing it come up.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
out the solution by yourselves.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: s
used a different term - it would
> then have been patently true.
Depends on what the different term was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Sof
On Jun 19, 2007, "Josh Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Free Software is not about freedom of choice. That's an OSI slogan
>> for "if you like, you can shoot your own foot, regardless of w
hardware and not others.)
Correct. Whoever distributed you the software entitled you to enjoy
the freedoms wherever you manage to run the software.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Eng
r the PPC 405/440 and or for the NXP
> (MIPS based) chips.
As you probably know, this is not a valid excuse to distribute the
software under conditions that disrespect its license.
It doesn't mean you can force them to give you the source code, it
only means the copyright holder can stop them from
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 load
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 mean
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
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
rity holes.
Which is why the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL P
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 thre
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)
>>
>>
&
fight for the freedoms as goals in themselves. We fight for
them because we understand they're essential for the common good.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTEC
halts.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
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 A
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 state
knife manufacturer
liable for a killing using a knife they made, just because the knife
didn't have technical measures intended to prevent the knife from
being used to kill people.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla
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 t
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 at
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
morals in ways
that I agree so much with, even if I dissent in a some details. This
has further increased my admiration for you. Thank you.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
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.
>
en you say they have a right to do)
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?
--
Alexandre Oliva
ps
> binary kernel modules.
Only copyright holders of Linux can go after them on matters of kernel
drivers. Or is this driver derived from any software copyrighted by
myself? Or did you mean the FSF, with whom I'm not associated in any
way other than ideologically?
--
Alexand
ftware.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
it worth it this time.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
, and certainly not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
associated. Just in case this wasn't clear yet ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Soft
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 m
chance file them against an earlier draft? Those (for
obvious reasons) no longer appear against the current draft, but
they're still accessible by other means.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red
ut to a cryptographical algorithm, and a signature is
an output. I could try to come up with more creative definitions, but
you get the idea already.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
rovide some code for it to isntall (which has to be signed in a way
> the hardware likes), then the hardware has nothing to do with the
> license of the software.
Correct. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?
> I hope no one does this, but I still don't see how the GPLv3 draft de
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
t's a lot about making sure no one can acquire a
privileged position, such that every licensee plays under the same
rules. (The copyright holder is not *acquiring* a privileged
position, copyright law had already granted him/her that position.)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp
file cannot take it back,
whereas the verification of unsigned software is just a warning, that
you can often bypass by telling the software to go ahead and install
it regardless of signatures.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http:
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
>> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
>> compatibility) introduced an
ception to be compatible with the apache license
For the record, it doesn't, GPLv3 is going to be compatible with the
apache 2.0 license, no additional exceptions needed.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
R
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> ... and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions. No.
Respecting the wishes of the author of t
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
>
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
>> my own mind, not speaking on behalf of
. And what's
more, I could still use your code in my GPLv2 projects, and enforce
that against tivoizers, and there's nothing you can do to stop me.
So what exactly are you trying to accomplish by pretending that mutual
compatibility with GPLv3 would set you back in any way?
--
Alexandre Oliva
in order to be able to
combine two copyleft licenses, you need mutual compatibility
provisions in both. Which is what I was proposing.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTE
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 s
;no further restrictions" clear enough?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from
r that company.
Indeed, compiler engineers are often the bearers of company's voices.
Not!
> I'm simply replying to you that indeed it is not clear for whom you
> speak with all that info in your signature and the email address you
> post from.
Understood. Thanks for doing that so nicely.
I'm gl
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Anyone who's not happy about it can still take that portion out,
>> unless you accept changes that make this nearly impossible, which I
>> sup
/354
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/117
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/432
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [
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
On Jun 21, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> It's not like anyone can safely tivoize devices with GPLv2 already,
> So you really didn't pay any attention to anything people told you?
Yes. Particu
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
>> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
>>
code sharing world
> by fragmenting the licence landscape even more.
I take it that removing barriers to cooperation in GPLv3 by default is
undesirable. Well, then, what can I say? I tried. :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
, and with
GPLv3 plus (potential built-in?) permission to combine with v2. I can
see that it boggles the minds not used to this kind of combination.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engine
ore-informed decisions.
Thanks for listening.
o-o
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
On Jun 22, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
>> licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
&g
er it even makes sense for me to champion
this suggestion towards inclusion in GPLv3.
> at times where one could wonder if he was really sent by Tivo to
> make sure the kernel would stay GPLv2. :-)
:-) Dammit, how did you guess? :-) I even tried to disguise it by
insisting that GPLv2
nses
would apply. But IANAL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Jun 25, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
>> spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.
> Just b
d was
permitted, and the scenario included the vendor's refusal to give
customers other copies of the sources.
Which is it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
>> includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
>> the
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
>> and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
>> the
nts in GPLv3.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
u *can* point at the sources you used, even in a
site that you don't control.
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 ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva
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. the
eone from obtaining them
Back when GPLv2 was written, it really was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and install it.
- Sources are behind network authentication, as above, so although
your device receives them, you can't get to them because they're in
the encrypted disk.
Does it seem to you that GPLv2 blocks any of these means to distribute
your code without granting its users access to the
On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
>> preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
>> behind a barrier you cannot
to modify every single copy of the program that is
> distributed to you.
No, it only means that the distributor must not impose restrictions on
my ability to modify those copies. The copyright holder says I can.
Both nature and distributor might have means to stop me from doing it.
Copyright holder can
ing or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
source or object form.
--
Alexa
that software, there's no way the GPL can stop you from
imposing whatever restrictions that law permits you to impose, if you
choose to do so. But the GPL won't impose restrictions on others just
in case their downstream users might become your next target.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.l
efrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
obtain the sources because the machine opted not to get them.
Now, the user can't distribute the binaries, because doing so without
being able to get the sources to pass them on would be copyrigh
m of copyright enfrocement. The "further
> restriction" clause is, at it states, only on the exercise of *rights*
> (which I think means those rights licensed to you under copyright law,
> namely the right of distribution and copying).
... and modification and, depending
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
> download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
> obtain t
On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva write:
>> > The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear
>> > whether it
>> > means you have permission or you must be able to. The general
601 - 700 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
