> > If I understood you correctly, using a language pair from Apertium was > more > > or less like playing a video from a video player in terms of licensing, > as > > GPL would consider both of them "mere aggregation". The only thing that I > > would be doing is verifying that this "mere aggregation" comes from a > > trusted source. Doesn't GPL allow me to do that? That sounds like an > > extremely stupid restriction! > > > > TiVo did the same thing with signed versions of the Linux kernel, and > that's why the GPL3 includes this clause, why it's restricted to "user > devices", and why Linux is GPL2-only.
OK. Now I understand what you were referring to. But I think that what I propose has nothing to do with Tivoization, because our signature would not be hardware checked but software checked, which means that anybody would be free to modify the app and skip the check if they wish. In fact, this is what the GPL FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GiveUpKeys): I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys? No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
