On 11-04-26 at 04:28pm, John Watlington wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>> Tivoization - as I understand it - is when the hardware locks the > >>> code in a way so that it can be executed but sources for the > >>> executed code is not available. That, I believe, is not the case > >>> for GPL-licensed code on the XOs even when the XOs are locked > >>> down. > >>> > >>> GPL code must be _readable_ - it need not be executable. > >> > >> Actually, I believe that GPL v3 "fixed" that oversight. > > > > How, more specifically? > > This is being thrashed to death on other threads that I was ignoring > when I replied to this one. Basically, the "anti-tivoization" clause > of GPL v3 prevents use of the code if someone can't install a modified > version of the code. Under GPL v3, it is no longer sufficient to > provide source code, you also have to provide a way of running a > modified version of that source code on the hardware distributed with > the original code. > > As Martin says, GPL v3 moves from requiring that modifications be > shared, to telling you what you can and cannot do with the code.
Did Martin really acknowledge that XOs - if considered _transportation_ devices for Sugar - would cause GPLv3 to be violated?!? In that case I stand down and shut up - then I do not understand GPLv3 well enough to argue about it! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
