"The source code for this product is available under the terms of the GPL
from the following web page http://www.mycompanyname.com/gpl";
This assumes that no special steps are needed to obtain the software from
that web page.
But thats YOURcompanyname.com. Not a third party. If you gave as a
li
In the sense that he can decide to remove all contributions from
dissenting authors, yes, he does. But he can't impose his more lax
interpretation upon other authors. Under copyright, it's the more
yes, I saw my argument going weak as I wrote it, but what I said later:
So if you own a part o
A little issue about "when is translation good"
I usually tell people to use vimtutor's example to set up syntax
highlighting in vim. I usually only install OSs in english because
translations tend to be poor and hard to comprehend.
Now, I'm from argentina, and I live with a lingüist. He doesn't
powerful. It is pretty obvious that when Linus adopted GPLv2 he
didn't realize it reached that point. That when Tivo invented
Tivoization, he decided he wanted to permit this, and thus grants an
implicit additional permission for anyone to do it with his code,
doesn't mean other participants in
> as long as this right is not used by the software distributor to
> impose restrictions on the user's ability to adapt the software to
> their own needs. The GPLv3 paragraph above makes a fair concession in
> this regard, don't you agree?
no, one of the rules for the network is that the softwar
On 6/20/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm about this far to Linus'izing my wording and calling you stupid,
> hypocrite, or bullshitter
Knock yourself out, it will no doubt lend much moral and log
> However, I don't see how this would ever require a company like Tivo
> or Mastercard to have their networks play nice with a unit that has
> been modified by the end user, potentially opening up some serious
> security holes.
Which is why the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated.
Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and
even less make sense.
plus, and I repeat myself.. the program comes with no warranties whatsoever.
and if your complains are purely moral, see it this way: if TiVo
didn't sign their kernel, digital cable providers wouldn't giv
A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
a certain result.
-- US Code, Title 17, Section 101
so?
Not GPL related, but casino machine software that needs to be approved
by the casino regula
It's simple: they don't provide _complete_ source code. They keep the
source code for the part of their Linux kernel images that provides
the functionality "runs on Tivo DVRs". The GPL requires that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization does not agree that this is
the problem but rather "Ti
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and
provide source code for GPL'e
1) What is "tat"?
2) How can I get some?
3) Where do I go to trade it in?
4) is it legal to consume it in my country?
5) should I have a designed driver when I do?
--
|_|0|_|
|_|_|0|
|0|0|0|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
12 matches
Mail list logo
