On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:54:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. 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/
