On 27 October 2014 07:52, Mikel Artetxe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > 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): >
The FAQ says that; the licence does not. The FAQ is quite specific, while the licence itself is quite vague -- presumably, deliberately so, to cover unforeseen circumstances, and/or to try to prevent lawyers from finding ways to argue around it: "hardware" is not mentioned in that section; what might be considered "hardware" for purposes of the FAQ might not be hardware in reality. Nobody applies the terms of the GPL3 _FAQ_ to their code, and there is no reasonable basis to assume, in the case of divergence, that additional clarifications could or would apply, if the licensor has not provided them. -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
