On Saturday 16 June 2007 13:14:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the > >> > Linux kernel > >> > >> How so? > > > > Er, they installed it in the same piece of equipment, and the kernel > > couldn't function without it in that work. > > I see what you're getting at. You're thinking of a license that > doesn't respect the idea of "mere aggregation", right? > > For starters, this wouldn't evidently not qualify as an Open Source > license, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't qualify as a Free Software > license either.
This situation is a general description that actually fits what TiVO has done. The difference in the TiVO case is that you (and everyone that thinks like you - ie: believes that the "tivoization" language in GPLv3 is good) equate "replace entirely" with "modification" when, in fact, the two are entirely separate acts. > > By using GPLix as part of their boot process along with their > > non-GPL BIOS, they're subverting the freedoms that the user should > > have in being able to control the entire boot process. > > You're pushing the "freedom to change" too far. Sure, I'd like to be > able to do that, and I prefer hardware that lets me do it, but it's > not like this BIOS in the scenario you described is being used as a > means to stop me from modifying the GPLed software. > > I have never said that including a GPLed piece of software should > grant users the right to modify anything whatsoever in the system, or > grant them control over the entire system. Others have, but it's not > true, it just shows how much mis-information is floating around. > > All the GPL stands for is to defend the freedom of the users over the > particular program it applies to. You can't impose further > restrictions on the user's ability to modify what *that* software > does. "You can't impose further restrictions on the user's ability to modify what *that* software does." I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on *REPLACEMENT* of the program. If you're going to argue that "replacement == modification" then it is an *easy* argument to make that every time someone *replaces* linux with a proprietary system the proprietary system magically becomes GPL'd. And no, this isn't a logical fallacy on my part. It's on your part - all I've done is take the logic you have provided and extend it to cover a different situation. DRH > If you wanted to change something else, but this something else is not > covered by the license, and is not being used to contradict the terms > of the license, well, too bad, you lose. > > > b) deny themselves the ability to every offer a patch to said BIOS if > > bugs are found > > > > Point (b) is also exactly on topic for the discussion of enforcing > > legal safety obligations in hardware on a peripheral rather than the > > software drivers. > > > > It's requiring that these limitations be placed in a technically > > inferior location to hack around a legal "bug". > > I don't think this last sentence is true. If you implement hardware > locks that prevent modification of the software even by yourself, then > you're in compliance with the terms of the GPLv3dd4. But IANAL. -- 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/
