| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070614013214.GA1124293@hiwaay.net> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:32:14 -0500 From: Chris Adams <cmadams@...aay.net> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> said: > if you distribute copies of such a program, [...] > you must give the recipients all the rights that you have > >So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR. > >TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit. > >It doesn't give the recipients the same right. Sure it does; you received a program (the kernel) and you can modify it. You also received hardware; they don't support modification of that. Nowhere in the license does it say they have to, because the license only covers the program. Or are you claiming that putting software on hardware makes the result a derivative work? I think it falls under the "mere aggregation" clause. What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)? Would that also violate the "spirit" of the GPL? Must any device that wishes to include GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)? - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists