Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and > includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is > theoretically accessible using the shipped kernel, but that nothing in > the software available in the machine will let you get to. Further, > sources (like everything else on disk) are encrypted, and you can only > decrypt it with hardware crypto that is disabled if the boot loader > doesn't find a correct signature for the boot partition, or maybe the > signature is irrelevant, given that everything on disk is encrypted in > such a way that, if you don't have the keys, you can't update the > kernel properly anyway. The vendor refuses to give customers other > copies of the sources. To add insult to the injury, the vendor > configures the computer to set up the encrypted disk partition > containing the sources as a swap device, such that the shared-secret > key used to access that entire filesystem is overwritten upon the > first boot, rendering the entire previous contents of the partition > holding the source code into an incomprehensible stream of bits. > > Does anyone think this is permitted by the letter of GPLv2?
Yes. > Is it in the spirit of GPLv2? No, but that's besides the point. You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be chaos. If there is a specific usage spirit you want to protect, then you must formulate it in letter. > How are the sources passed on in this way going to benefit the user or the > community? They still have to provide the source by other GPL means of their choosing. > Is this still desirable by the Linux developers? Looks undesirable to me, but still valid. Thanks! -- Al - 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/
