Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean:
> > not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
>
> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
Section 3a of the
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> However, if the site takes the sources out, you're still responsible
>> for providing sources to those who received the sources from you from
>> that point on. Or something like that, IANAL ;-)
> this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have the sources at that
> point if you were relying on the other site to host them.
You would then be violating the GPL, under any version. The GPL is quite
clear that being unable to comply with it means you do not get
> On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva:
>
> >> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
> >> > mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
> >> >
> But thats YOURcompanyname.com. Not a third party. If you gave as a
> link somebodyelsescompany.com/gpl then somebodyelse could get rid of
> the link, and your offer wouldn't be valid for "at least three years"
>
> T
You mean it might not be valid for at least three years. It also might be.
You
On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva:
>> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
>> > mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
>> > download link.
>>
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless you are saying that the GPLv3 is saying that a third party link
now _is_ sufficiant.
Yup. The improvement in GPLv3 is to relax the requirement of
providing source code in physical medium if you
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> unless you are saying that the GPLv3 is saying that a third party link
> now _is_ sufficiant.
Yup. The improvement in GPLv3 is to relax the requirement of
providing source code in physical medium if you choose to not
distribute it along with the
"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
Alexandre Oliva:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
> > mean: not
> > directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
>
> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
A lot of people
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not
directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
FWIW,
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not
> directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
FWIW, it is one of the improvements in GPLv3.
--
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
> >
> > No, but that's besides the point.
>
> Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
>
> > You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be
>
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
> No, but that's besides the point.
Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
> You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be chaos.
That's not *quite* how it
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
No, but that's besides the point.
Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be chaos.
That's not *quite* how it works, but
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
No, but that's besides the point.
Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be
chaos.
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not
directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
FWIW, it is one of the improvements in GPLv3.
--
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not
directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
FWIW,
Alexandre Oliva:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
mean: not
directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
A lot of people seem to say
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
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless you are saying that the GPLv3 is saying that a third party link
now _is_ sufficiant.
Yup. The improvement in GPLv3 is to relax the requirement of
providing source code in physical medium if you choose to not
distribute it along with the
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless you are saying that the GPLv3 is saying that a third party link
now _is_ sufficiant.
Yup. The improvement in GPLv3 is to relax the requirement of
providing source code in physical medium if you
On Jun 26, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
download link.
This has never been
But thats YOURcompanyname.com. Not a third party. If you gave as a
link somebodyelsescompany.com/gpl then somebodyelse could get rid of
the link, and your offer wouldn't be valid for at least three years
T
You mean it might not be valid for at least three years. It also might be.
You also
On Jun 26, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
download link.
This has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have the sources at that
point if you were relying on the other site to host them.
You would then be violating the GPL, under any version. The GPL is quite
clear that being unable to comply with it means you do not get
On Jun 26, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if the site takes the sources out, you're still responsible
for providing sources to those who received the sources from you from
that point on. Or something like that, IANAL ;-)
this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have the
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean:
not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
Section 3a of the GPLv2
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,
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,
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
On Jun 22, 2007, "Tomas Neme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The thing is, what matters in copyright and licencing matters is what
> the author of the code understands, no the licence's author, if
> ambiguous. And the kernel's rights holder is Linus.
Since he didn't get copyright assignments, each
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
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
On Jun 22, 2007, Tomas Neme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing is, what matters in copyright and licencing matters is what
the author of the code understands, no the licence's author, if
ambiguous. And the kernel's rights holder is Linus.
Since he didn't get copyright assignments, each
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
On Jun 21, 2007, at 15:19:35, Stephen Clark wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700 "David Schwartz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
statements nor instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits
Tivoization is
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
> >> understand why people who disagree with this stance chose GPLv2.
> >> Isn't "no further restrictions" clear enough?
> > everyone
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
>>> disagree with you.
>>
>> For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
disagree with you.
For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
understand why people who disagree with this
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
> disagree with you.
For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
understand why people who disagree with this stance chose GPLv2.
Isn't "no further
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
>>> opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
>>> licensee.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
network by only listening in, can you?
Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
>> network by only listening in, can you?
> Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be something that
> GPLv3 should prohibit.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
licensee.
It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
Sorry, that's what happens when one types before
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> You can't use this code if you cooporate with anyone that requires
>> DRM systems.
> I think their earlier versions did say this.
Show me a GPLv3 draft that did it?
Start here, section 3:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
> opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
> licensee.
It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
actually. It's a lot about
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
> I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> Apparently the only restrictions ever permitted are the ones the FSF
> thinks of.
Where does this nonsensical idea come from? How does it follow that,
from FSF offering a licensing option to authors, you conclude that
nobody could
On Jun 21, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I went and made some comments on the draft, and they appear to no
> longer be there a few days later.
This would be very bad. Please let me know what they were about and
I'll try to figure out what happened.
Did you by any chance file
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
>> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
>> > statements nor
>> > instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
>>> certified,
>>
>> In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of
David Schwartz wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
statements nor
instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization is
really and
truly absurd. It has
> So much for "Land of the free". :(
That was always just a typo. Its the Land of the Fee
-
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
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you snippede the bit about not knowing how to stop it
I did? As far as I can tell I quoted it all. What did I miss?
they call the section the anti-tivoization, how much more
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
> > statements nor
> > instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization is
> > really and
> > truly absurd. It has neither a legal nor a
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you snippede the bit about not knowing how to stop it
I did? As far as I can tell I quoted it all. What did I miss?
> they call the section the anti-tivoization, how much more explicit can
> they get?
They could be as
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:26:04AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the bios doesn't have enough capability to talk to the outside world for
updates.
Of course, although perhaps it could. More likely my thought was that
the service when it decides
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:26:04AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the bios doesn't have enough capability to talk to the outside world for
> updates.
Of course, although perhaps it could. More likely my thought was that
the service when it decides to download an update, would include the
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 04:07:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The
wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
complete source code for it.
So how about
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 04:07:57PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The
> wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
> complete source code for it.
So how about this idea then:
Tivo builds a kernel for their
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:23:01AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> And then the user who uses such features in ways not permitted by the
> copyright holders are committing a crime. They can be prosecuted by
> the copyright holders and convicted of the crime.
Well we already clearly know the
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Tomas Neme wrote:
> 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
Alan Cox wrote:
You've made an important mistake. You said "their system". Now its "our
code" and "whoever bought the units' hardware" so it isn't their anything.
Yes, the hardware belongs to the user, and the software belongs to the Linux
community. However I think I wasn't 100% clear, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:56:33AM +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> Providing the changes back itself is a great thing altogether.
It also makes sense. If the changes are accepted back, the community at
large will keep the changes maintained. Less work for me to do when
going to newer code versions
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 05:52:40PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> > A patent prevents you from using the software in any way at all,
> > while a hardware restriction prevents you from using the software on
> > that particular
> 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
> > You've made an important mistake. You said "their system". Now its "our
> > code" and "whoever bought the units' hardware" so it isn't their anything.
>
> Yes, the hardware belongs to the user, and the software belongs to the Linux
> community. However I think I wasn't 100% clear, I also
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The kernel you build from the source code that Tivo distributes must
> > be accepted by Tivo's hardware without making other modifications (to
> > Tivo's hardware or bootloader). If that is possible, I will
Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
running short.
[...]
So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> asking a device that's running software that you haven't verified to give
> you a checksum of itself isn't going to work becouse the software can just
> lie to you.
>
I don't think there is any way I _could_ make a device if it
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:14 -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
> []
>> Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
>> modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
>
> Or it might be modified to fix a bug - either a technical one
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:14 -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
[]
> Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
> modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
Or it might be modified to fix a bug - either a technical one or a legal
one as described below.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> what sort of signal can the network controller send that couldn't be
> forged by the OS?
>
> how would you do this where the device is a receiver on the netwoek
> (such as a satellite receiver)
just for the question on the HOWTO (not on anything else)
You can easily
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of the
network on the network controller itself, I suppose.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frankly, I haven't checked the licenses on the software. I'd suggest
going to www.tivo.com/linux and download all the source for all the
different versions there.
Yeah, thanks, I remembered someone had
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
> certified,
In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of the
network on the network controller itself, I suppose.
Not that you should disable the network
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> frankly, I haven't checked the licenses on the software. I'd suggest
> going to www.tivo.com/linux and download all the source for all the
> different versions there.
Yeah, thanks, I remembered someone had posted that URL the second
after a hit Send
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:28:22PM +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
>> Well, it is not Tivo alone -- look at http://aminocom.com/ for an
>> example. If you want the kernel sources pay USD 50k and we will provide
>> the kernel sources, was their attitude.
>
> Hmm, set top boxes
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate network sessions?
And
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
the signature is completely independant.
Well,
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
> accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate network sessions?
And note, "it's been tampered with" is not
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
>>> the signature is completely independant.
>>
>> Well, then remove or otherwise
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
the signature is completely independant.
Well, then remove or otherwise mangle the
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate network sessions?
And note, it's been tampered with is not necessarily
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
the signature is completely independant.
Well,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how exactly can they prevent a system that's been tampered with from
accessing their network?
By denying access to their servers? By not granting whatever is
needed to initiate network sessions?
And
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:28:22PM +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
Well, it is not Tivo alone -- look at http://aminocom.com/ for an
example. If you want the kernel sources pay USD 50k and we will provide
the kernel sources, was their attitude.
Hmm, set top boxes are
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frankly, I haven't checked the licenses on the software. I'd suggest
going to www.tivo.com/linux and download all the source for all the
different versions there.
Yeah, thanks, I remembered someone had posted that URL the second
after a hit Send :-(
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of the
network on the network controller itself, I suppose.
Not that you should disable the network controller
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frankly, I haven't checked the licenses on the software. I'd suggest
going to www.tivo.com/linux and download all the source for all the
different versions there.
Yeah, thanks, I remembered someone had
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of the
network on the network controller itself, I suppose.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what sort of signal can the network controller send that couldn't be
forged by the OS?
how would you do this where the device is a receiver on the netwoek
(such as a satellite receiver)
just for the question on the HOWTO (not on anything else)
You can easily have
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:14 -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
[]
Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
Or it might be modified to fix a bug - either a technical one or a legal
one as described below.
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:14 -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
[]
Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
Or it might be modified to fix a bug - either a technical one or a
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
asking a device that's running software that you haven't verified to give
you a checksum of itself isn't going to work becouse the software can just
lie to you.
I don't think there is any way I _could_ make a device if it had
Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:56:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
running short.
[...]
So, why would we want to waste our time filling out web
1 - 100 of 2135 matches
Mail list logo
