On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote: <snip> > > So let's look at that "section 6" that you talk about, and quote the > > relevant parts, will we: > > > > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' > > exercise of the rights granted herein. > > > > and then let's look at Red Hat sending me a CD-ROM or a DVD. > > > > Now, Red Hat clearly *did* "further restrict" my rights as it pertains TO > > THAT COPY ON THE CD-ROM! I cannot change it! Waa waa waa! I'll sue your > > sorry ass off! > > Red Hat is not stopping you from making changes. The media is, and > that's not something Red Hat can control.
TiVO isn't stopping you from making changes - the *media* is. (in this case the "Media" isn't even doing as much as a CD-ROM does. The only thing a TiVO box restricts is which binaries it will execute as the operating system) > > Compare this with the TiVO. TiVO *designs* the thing such that it can > still make changes, but customers can't. > > That's the difference. No, it isn't. Look at any motherboard. The Bios on the last three or four motherboards I've purchased check for a digital signature on the Bios updates. The motherboard manufacturer can make changes, but the customer can't. Is there any difference? Nope. > TiVO is using hardware to "impose further restrictions on the > recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", and this violates > section 6 of GPLv2. No, they don't. The GPLv2 makes no provisions for you being able to execute a modified copy of the code on the same media or hardware that you received it on. The fact is that claiming it was "the spirit" doesn't matter at all - this isn't philosophy you're arguing, its *LAW*, and in law, if it isn't clearly spelled out, it doesn't exist. > > See the issue? You are continually making the mistake of thinking that > > the GPLv2 talks about individual copies of software. > > It does. You're making the mistake of thinking that it doens't. And > even in the legal terms that you claimed to have understood so > thoroughly. > > > The rights granted are the rights to "distribute and modify the > > software". > > More specifically, some of the rights are: > > copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as > you receive it > > modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus > forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such > modifications or work And where does it say that you even have the right to run the "work based on the Program", or even a self-compiled copy of the "verbatim copy of the code" on any given piece of hardware? > > But by "the software", the license is not talking about a particular > > *copy* of the software, it's talking about the software IN THE ABSTRACT. > > Please read it again. Done. Section 3 of GPLv2 covers the right to distribute "object code" forms of a licensed work. At no point does it even *mention* that, if the object code form comes on a device capable of executing it, you have to give the right to execute a modified form of the work on the same platform. If this has been the "intent and spirit" of the license from the beginning, it should be there somewhere. DRH -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
