Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:53:43 -0400 | From | Florin Malita <> | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| |
On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <fmalita@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative >> work. Modification does. >> > > Thanks. Good point. This convinces me that this doesn't work as a > legal argument under copyright. > > I still stand by my understanding that this restriction violates the > spirit of the license. >
But since this elusive "spirit" is subject to everybody's interpretation of the preamble, you must surely admit that it remains just a matter of opinion ;)
>> It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the >> right to install new versions on the device >> > > Actually, no. They withhold the right to run versions that they don't > authorize themselves. >
On that particular piece of hw, yes. But who's granted you the right to *run* your modified copy *there* in the first place? GPLv2 explicitly steers clear of anything "other than copying, distribution and modification".
> Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an > issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control > that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobody had thought of > technical measures to stop people from running modified copies of > software. At least nobody involved in GPLv2, AFAIK. > > The landscape has changed, and GPLv3 is meant to defend this freedom > that was taken for granted. >
Then you agree that GPLv2 does not protect your freedom (taken for granted) to run a modified copy on any particular device, or am I misreading?
>>> What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your >>> editor? >>> > > >> Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact >> copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;) >> > > Sorry, I really don't follow. Both versions of the kernel binary also > started from a common source ancestor. Were you trying to make a > distinction on these grounds? >
Exactly: they have a common ancestor, they are both derived from it. But there's no ancestry relationship *between* them (unlike your edited file example) so you cannot argue that one is a modification of the other. Hence, Tivo is not really *modifying* the copies it distributes with the device - they're *installing* brand new copies instead. They also choose not to offer everybody the same privilege :-|
Does this go against the intent of the GPLv2 authors? Probably. Does it go against the letter of GPLv2? Apparently not. Does it go against your/some people's interpretation of the GPL "spirit"? Obviously. Does it go against everybody's interpretation? Obviously not.
--- fm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |