[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:0.026 / U:5.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site