> This argument is the obvious nonsense. "Runs on TiVO" is a property of > the software that TiVO distributes -- such an important property that > it would be nonsensical for them to distribute it with their hardware. > But they do distribute it, and only the GPL allows them to.
Why does the importance of the property matter to the validity of the argument? > Linus' key is not required to use the software Linus distributes under > the GPL, by contrast. Why does whether or not the key is required to use the software matter? It may be impossible to use a Linux kernel on a particular piece of hardware without the BIOS, that doesn't mean the BIOS source code is part of the kernel source code even if the kernel is shipped for that hardware. > > Tivo's choice is an authorization decision. It is similar to > > you not having > > root access to a Linux box. Sorry, you can't run a modified > > kernel on that > > machine, but you can still modify the kernel and run it on any hardware > > where authorization decisions don't stop you from doing so. The GPL was > > never about such authorization decisions. > Says judge Schwartz. Oops. That's right, you're not a judge in any > legal jurisdiction, nor an author of the GPL. Nice argument. I'm wrong because people can disagree with me. DS - 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/
