[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:54:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
> >>
> >> I produce egg yolk. I give it to you under terms that say "if you
> >> pass this on, you must do so in such a way that doesn't stop anyone
> >> from eating it"
> >>
> >> You produce egg shells. You carefully construct your shell around the
> >> egg yolk and some white you got from a liberal third party.
> >>
> >> Then you sell the egg shells, with white and yolk inside, under
> >> contracts that specify "the shell must be kept intact, it can't be
> >> broken or otherwise perforated".
> >>
> >> Are you or are you not disrespecting the terms that apply to the yolk?
> >
> > Bad analogy.
> It's just a very simple case in which an enclosure is being used to
> disrespect the terms of something enclosed in it.
> It's meant to show that the argument that "it's a software license, it
> can't affect the hardware" is nonsense.
> It's not meant to show whether TiVO is right or wrong. This would
> depend on agreement that the GPL requirements are similar to the
> requirements of the egg yolk manufacturer.
> >> > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the
> >> > software", on that piece of hardware it bought which had free
> >> > software on it, correct?
> >>
> >> Yes. This means the hardware distributor who put the software in
> >> there must not place roadblocks that impede the user to get where she
> >> wants with the software, not that the vendor must offer the user a
> >> sport car to take her there.
> >
> > Okay. That means that if I ship Linux on a ROM chip I have to
> > somehow make it so that the person purchasing the chip can modify
> > the copy of Linux installed on the chip *if* I want to follow both
> > the spirit and the letter of the GPLv2.
> I thought we'd already cleared up the issue about ROMs, and why
> they're different. Do I have to quote it again? Must I allude to
> "passing on the rights" every time I mention "imposing further
> restrictions"? :-(

I wasn't referring to anything that had already been "cleared up". I was
applying the logic of the statement of yours I quoted. The "cleared up"
things all were in reference to the GPLv3 - my example was in reference to
the "spirit" of the GPLv2 that you were stating. By simple extension of the
logic you provided I came to the conclusion stated above.

The fact that you've claimed I'm wrong shows how flawed your logic is.


Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-15 07:39    [W:0.856 / U:0.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site