linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:05:37 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...mix.at>
Cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Thursday 14 June 2007 04:37:55 Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version
> > > on their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware
> > > *ISN'T*
>
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> BTW as soon as I bought that thing, it is *my* hardware and no longer
> *theirs* (whoever "theirs" was).

eh. Perhaps I should have said that differently. And TiVO could handle it 
differently. I'm not going to argue about it anymore. It's pointless.

> > > covered by the GPL.
> >
> > Indeed, TiVO has this legal right.  But then they must not use
>
> Do they? At least in .at, it is usually impossible to (legally) limit
> the rights of the *owner* a (tangible) thing (and if I bought it, I *am*
> the owner and no one else) - even if you put it in the sales contract
> since this is discussion about/within sales law.
>
> One usual example is "you buy a car and neither the car producer nor the
> (re)seller can restrict the brands of the tires you may use or the brand
> of the fuel etc.".

No argument there. However, that is not to say that "you bought it, now you're 
free to do with it whatever you please" is always what the law says (at least 
in the US)

In the TiVO case there may be restrictions placed on the manufacturer for 
legal reasons or contractual reasons. Seeing as I'm not privy to the 
contracts between TiVO and the various production and broadcasting companies 
I can't comment on what contracts they have. As to the legal side there are 
restrictions in copyright law.

> And the same holds for pretty much everything. No one can forbid you to
> open a TV set and fix it (or let it fix by whoever I choose to).

I know of at least one company that will sell you the parts to repair your TV 
if its out of warranty.

DRH

> Yes, there are exceptions in several laws for specific things (e.g. for
> really dangerous ones like airbags in cars) but in general, you are
> allowed to do almost anything (including the simple destruction of it).
>
> And yes, if you *rent* the thing, you are not the owner and this is a
> totally different thing.
>
> > software under the GPLv3 in it.  And, arguably, they must not use
> > software under the GPLv2 either.
>
> 	Bernd



-- 
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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/