On Jun 17, 2007, Gabor Czigola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free as v2 and that includes
some ideas (from v3) that are considered as good (free, innovative, in
the spirit of whatever etc.)
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?
You apparently do not understand
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
One more time, I'm not talking about the license (the legal terms).
Ok. Then go away.
Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
The legal terms is the only reason a license *exists*. That's what a
license *is*, for crying out loud!
If
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
between communication standards and copyright licenses?
I don't. I was *REPEATING* an example of how TiVO has a *RIGHT*
On Sunday 17 June 2007 14:46:05 Michael Poole wrote:
Daniel Hazelton writes:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
Daniel Hazelton writes:
But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your
On Sunday 17 June 2007 15:32:34 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
between communication standards and copyright licenses?
I
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
software) for certain properties. (The
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Gabor Czigola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free as v2 and that includes
some ideas (from v3) that are considered as good (free, innovative, in
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay. So they give everyone the right to change the software on the
box, but on connection replace the modified stuff with the official
versions.
If I haven't modified it so as to stop them from doing so on my
computer, that is ;-)
--
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
modification?
You have to ask the copyright holder.
Affero did just that, and so the Affero GPL was born.
Just don't assume the FSF will grant such permissions lightly.
Daniel Hazelton writes:
Okay. So they give everyone the right to change the software on the box, but
on connection replace the modified stuff with the official versions. Is that
still a copyright problem? Absolutely, positively no. Is the current
situation any different? Not that I can
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 15:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Gabor Czigola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free as v2 and that includes
some ideas (from v3) that are
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
One more time, I'm not talking about the license (the legal terms).
Ok. Then go away.
Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
That's false, and the reason I know it is that, if
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 15:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Gabor Czigola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that is as free as
PROTECTED]
To: Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Gabor Czigola [EMAIL PROTECTED], lkml linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Jun 17, 2007, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 15:55 -0300, Alexandre Oliva
That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.
In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
rule changes is a bit impractical
Therefore,
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:07 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
[...]
However, as Ingo argued, not being able to patch holes, fix bugs and
add new features is a very bad idea. He was talking about the
software, but this is as true when it comes to the license.
Yes, but the license of the license of
On 17/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
no tivoization = more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized
computers = more users make useful modifications = more
contributions in kind
?
Sure, there's a downside too:
Once upon a time, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Let's say I'm the owner of a company selling some device that uses a
GPLv2 OS and some GPLv2 applications to do the job. Let's say that for
some reason I don't want the end users of my device to tinker with the
software inside my device.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
modification?
You have to ask the copyright holder.
Affero did just that, and so the Affero GPL was born.
Just don't assume the FSF will
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.
In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the
On Jun 17, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you argue that it is evil for tivo to produce a pice of hardware that
they can modify and the user can't
s/evil/unethical/, because I understand that denying people the
ability to enjoy the four freedoms of Free Software is unethical, and
accepting
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
A third way of stating it is software for software. No, the romans never
said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole
point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND!
Yes. And this was precisely what meant when I
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:46:44PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so
you are better off without tivoization.
Your perception is quite flawed.
I see where you come from, I know your intentions are absolutely
genuine, but there's
In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
rule changes is a bit impractical
Indeed. But that's not a legal requirement, it's an economic reason.
Cynical Economists would argue 'legal requirements' are just changes to
the cost of the various economic options.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:58:40PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Let's say I'm the owner of a company selling some device that uses a
GPLv2 OS and some GPLv2 applications to do the job. Let's say that for
some reason I don't want the end users
On Jun 17, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
no tivoization = more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized
computers = more users make useful modifications = more
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:58:40PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
The reason is that if there ever is a security hole in the routing
engine software (FreeBSD kernel, OpenSSH, etc.), it would be a really
bad thing if crackers could load arbitrary software (rootkits, spam
software, etc.) directly on
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
modification?
You have to ask the copyright holder.
Affero did just that, and so the
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
/me hands Linus a mirror
I'm a damn handsome dude, ain't I?
Heh. I beg to differ ;-)
Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
You're talking about something totally different.
No,
On Jun 17, 2007, Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Open source licenses shouldn't forbid usages, not even the blatantly
unethical ones, evil is not tangible (I guess everything would be
easier in life if it was).
Since you mention Open source...
What if I showed you that tivoization
Once upon a time, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
To be fair here, this could also be accomplished by having to flip a
physical switch on the router, especially if you did something funky
like:
[---] push this button for a 5 minute access pass to upload new
software through
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 23:19 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Wow!
Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
modification?
Thanks for being GPL!
--
Al
If the GPL2 were itself modifiable, there would be so many GPL licenses
that the term Relased under the GPL
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 14:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you argue that it is evil for tivo to produce a pice of hardware that they
can modify and the user can't
but you then argue that it's a good thing for the FSF to produce a license
that they can modify and others can't
They can't
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:08 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
modification?
You have to ask the copyright holder.
Affero did just that, and so the
On Jun 17, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's full of kludges exactly because it tries to carve out a notion
> that can only be determined on case-to-case basis and not by generic
> definition.
I agree it's a very difficult definition. I'm not sure I'm happy with
the wording in
On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
> >
> > No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
>> four freedoms that the GPL was designed to respect and defend.
> The GPL is a software license, *independent* of
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007 00:19:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> There may be laws that require certification or
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2007 23:31:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.
>>
>> They're based on the Free Software definition,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:31:00AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'm not trying to say why Linus and others chose the GPLv2.
>
> I'm not trying to determine what their motivations were.
>
> I'm not trying to force them to change to GPLv3.
>
> I'm not trying to convince them that tivozation
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
> No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
> *agree* on the "spirit".
They don't have to.
On Sunday 17 June 2007 00:19:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> There may be laws that require certification or limitations on the
> >> user. Manufacturer giving up the ability
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> There may be laws that require certification or limitations on the
>> user. Manufacturer giving up the ability to make modifications would
>> address this, or *perhaps*
On Saturday 16 June 2007 23:31:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.
>
> They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
> four freedoms that the GPL was designed to
On Jun 16, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > No, this is completely and utterly wrong. By this logic, Linux
>> > isn't free if
>> > I can't run it on *YOUR* laptop. TiVo places restrictions on
>> > *hardware*.
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.
They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
four freedoms that the GPL was designed to respect and defend.
Each version of the GPL may miss the mark.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
*agree* on the "spirit".
You think that there is only one "spirit", and that you own the code-book,
and that your
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I obviously wasn't clear enough. The only way to come into complience
> > with GPL3dd4 is to reduce your ability to fix things or grant everyone
> > else the ability to mess
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:49:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have
> On Jun 16, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, this is completely and utterly wrong. By this logic, Linux
> > isn't free if
> > I can't run it on *YOUR* laptop. TiVo places restrictions on
> > *hardware*. The
> > hardware is not free.
> TiVo uses the hardware to stop the
On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See, that's the problem I have with your arguments. "Same freedom for
> everyone" is a political slogan. It is not a reasoned thought.
Well, this is what got us GPLv2. And the same reasoning is getting us
GPLv3, and it does get
On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I obviously wasn't clear enough. The only way to come into complience
> with GPL3dd4 is to reduce your ability to fix things or grant everyone
> else the ability to mess with things. This severely restricts you from
> doing _anything_
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
>> > *modification* at all. What they
On Jun 16, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
>> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
>> > *REPLACEMENT*
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 08:21:22PM -0600, Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
> Linus,
>
> Just take a vote and start tagging files and ignore this needless
> diatribe. It is was it is, I seriously doubt you will
> get all of Linux moved to GPL3 as a monolith, since you will never get
> concensus. You
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
No, I'm arguing that it's not "mere aggregation" - the kernel is useless
on that machine unless the BIOS is present or replaced with something
else with equivalent functionality.
That's *not* a valid argument!
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
> No, I'm arguing that it's not "mere aggregation" - the kernel is useless
> on that machine unless the BIOS is present or replaced with something
> else with equivalent functionality.
That's *not* a valid argument!
I know, I know, it's a common
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
their system firmware to ROM however is
[note: I'm writting this while offline and likely to remain so for the
next 8 hours or so, so I'll probably miss a bunch of other replies]
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:14:29PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:12:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>"In order to protect your freedoms, we sometimes have to take some
> freedoms away. In particular, the freedom of critical thinking got
> revoked last year, because people were just too 'confused'"
ITYM "upgraded to
On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:01:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In the case of renting a machine you can try
On Jun 16, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > How the hell does that improve the situation for users?
>>
>> Maybe it doesn't. How does it make it worse?
>>
>
On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
> > *REPLACEMENT* of the
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> Now not even the vendor can upgrade the software in the hardware and
> fix problems for the user. The user loses.
You're seeing that the wrong way.
The correct response is (and I quote from the manual, pick one talking
point at random):
"This is
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In the case of renting a machine you can try to legislate new laws all
>> > you want. It doesn't make a
On 16/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How the hell does that improve the situation for users?
Maybe it doesn't. How does it make it worse?
Now not even the vendor can upgrade the software in the hardware and
fix
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
> > *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
> Technicality. In order for the software to
Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you have to give recipients the license text from a particular
> version of the GPL. To make that the only version unde which the work
> is licensed, you have to add something like "Licensed under the
> GPLv2". Otherwise sec. 9 says that you offer
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They are not keeping a priviledge over the *SOFTWARE* at all. They
> are keeping a priviledge over the *HARDWARE*.
No, they're using the hardware (along with other pieces of software)
to deny users (but not themselves) the freedoms
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
> *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
Technicality. In order for the software to remain free
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:43 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >
> > You mean renting the computer with the software in it is not
> > distribution of the software?
>
> It is. But you don't have the same rights to a rented machine as you do to
> one
> you have purchased. In fact, in renting a
On Jun 16, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How the hell does that improve the situation for users?
Maybe it doesn't. How does it make it worse?
Maybe just providing an incentive for the vendor to respect users'
freedoms will do the trick, and *some* vendors will do, while those
who
On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
On Saturday 16 June 2007 13:14:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > because it could easily be argued that
On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:57:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
> >>> their system
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:57:59PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>
On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
>> > Linux kernel
>>
>> How so?
On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
>>
>> I'm not the
> Red Hat created the "Fedora" trademark to have a separate and more liberally
> licensed trademark that people like cheapbytes.com could use without
> reflecting on Red Hat Enterprise. Unfortunately, trying to find reference
> for this is non-obvious, because, the Fedora Trademarks page is:
Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, by making the COPYING contain the v2 text, is the author
> > specifying a particular version? If yes, then the sec. 9 provision
> > would be meaningless, since there would be no way to not specify a
> > version number.
>
> Of course the
> I read it: the flash contains everything from the bootloader to the
> kernel and file system. The bootloader contains the public key and
> checks if the kernel/fs
> are ok. That includes calculating hashes and checking signatures.
> No encryption/decryption there at all.
>
> Right?
>
> Then
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>> I always did imply a "within reason". To me that means "if it is
>> simple for them to do it and can be simply extended to me as well
>> then they have to extend it". Handing out a SHA1 key definitely is
>> simple and thus IMO something I can expect them to do.
> But
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> and that's where the GPLv3 errs: it arbitrarily attempts to "define"
> some work that can _easily_ be completely separate from the GPL-ed
> work to be under the scope of "source code".
Well thanksfuly the last draft doesn't and puts keys and other such
stuff under
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
>> their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
>
> I'm not the FSF, and I don't speak for it, but it seems to me that
> this would
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> > Linux kernel
>
> How so?
(I'm going to refer to Linux as GPLix from here on since this
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How hard would it be to reprogramm the flash?
The flash contains hashes signed by the companies private key.
The kernel contains the public key. It can decrypt the hashes but the
private key isn't available to encrypt them. So
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 11:24:08AM -0300, Tomas Neme wrote:
>> 1) What is "tat"?
>>
>> 2) How can I get some?
>>
>> 3) Where do I go to trade it in?
>
> 4) is it legal to consume it in my country?
>
> 5) should I have a designed driver when I do?
6) Is that allowed to be a binary-only driver or
Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, by making the COPYING contain the v2 text, is the author
> specifying a particular version? If yes, then the sec. 9 provision
> would be meaningless, since there would be no way to not specify a
> version number.
Of course the "published under
On Jun 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Then, any redistributor adds a copy of any version of the GPL (because
>> >> you didn't specify a version number). At this point, is the program
>> >> licensed by *you* only under this specific license?
>>
>> > If they did not
On Jun 16, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
>> > the same - neither forcing the
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
> Linux kernel
How so?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
>> >> users the
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How hard would it be to reprogramm the flash?
>
> The flash contains hashes signed by the companies private key.
>
> The kernel contains the public key. It can decrypt the hashes but the
> private key isn't available to encrypt them. So although you
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Furthermore when you get source code of free software then there is
> > no "meeting of minds" needed for you to accept the GPL's conditions,
> > and only the letter of the license (and, in case of any ambiguities,
> > the intent of the author of
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This 5 minute design undoubtedly has flaws but it shows a direction:
A basically standard 'De11' PC with some flash.
A Tivoised boot system so only signed kernels boot.
A modified kernel that only runs (FOSS) executables whose
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This 5 minute design undoubtedly has flaws but it shows a direction:
A basically standard 'De11' PC with some flash.
A Tivoised boot system so only signed kernels boot.
A modified kernel that only runs (FOSS) executables whose
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore when you get source code of free software then there is
no meeting of minds needed for you to accept the GPL's conditions,
and only the letter of the license (and, in case of any ambiguities,
the intent of the author of the code)
701 - 800 of 2137 matches
Mail list logo
