[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070613212250.A21801@yoda.lmcg.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:22:50 -0500
From: Daniel Forrest <forrest@...g.wisc.edu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Chris Adams <cmadams@...aay.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:52:48AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> As a PS to the GPL3 comment here is the basic difference
>
> ROM - I can't modify the code on the device
> The creator can't modify the code further on the device
>
> Tivo - I can't modify the code on the device
> The owner can modify the code
>
> One is an implicit limitation of the hardware (just like I can't run
> openoffice on a 4MB PC even though the license gives me the right to
> try), the other is an artificial restriction.
>
> One case is witholding freedom in the GPL sense by one party while
> keeping it themselves, the other is a limitation of the system
> inevitably imposed on everyone.
I've been following this discussion and I find this interesting.
Consider these two cases:
1.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they replace the ROM,
and ship it back to me.
2.) I ship the device back to the manufacturer, they load new code
into it, and ship it back to me.
How do these two differ? Or is it now just a question of the ROM
being in a socket? I can't see how the technicalities of how the
hardware is constructed can change the legality of the software.
--
Dan
-
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