Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
"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 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 -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 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 -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 of the kernel, then you can pursuit TiVo on your own, if they did direct use of that part especifically and break (in your opinion) what you feel GPLv2 means. You can form the CATV2 (CodersAgainstTiVo v2) and try to get TiVo to stop using the Linux Kernel for their product (because, believe me, they WON'T release the keys). Yeay, we lost Tivo's improvements on the kernel, and the posibility of having a working kernel if anyone feels like back-ingeneering TiVo for their own amusement. is still right. What I meant, at least by the end of that email, was that he has the last word on trying to stop TiVo from using The Linux Kernel. Each author can still go and stop them from using his part, and the derivative work that is The Linux Kernel. But that brings another question: what if TiVo decided to remove all code from the complaining parts and rewrite them? that wouldn't be The Linux Kernel anymore, but it would be a derivative work of all the parts that don't disagree with Tivoization, but is that legal? -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] Chinese translation of Documentation/HOWTO
A little issue about "when is translation good" I usually tell people to use vimtutor's example to set up syntax highlighting in vim. I usually only install OSs in english because translations tend to be poor and hard to comprehend. Now, I'm from argentina, and I live with a lingüist. He doesn't handle english very well, and he wanted to get rid of Windows, so we installed ubuntu, Locale:SP_ARG. vim is in spanish, and so is vimtutor. vimtutor's spanish translation doesn't have anything on syntax highlighting: the translation is poor. my point: IMHO it's better to have no translation than a poor one T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 the Linux community feel the same way, or read the GPLv2 the same way, and could be somehow stopped from enforcing the license the way they meant it. 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. The authors of the particular bits of code can complain about what tivo's doing, but since TiVo's using the linux kernel, and GPLv2 says "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." Linus has the last word on it. IANAL, but as far as I can tell this reads as "this licence applies to the whole, not to the parts by themselves", and so does who the "holder" is, I'd believe. So if you own a part of the kernel, then you can pursuit TiVo on your own, if they did direct use of that part especifically and break (in your opinion) what you feel GPLv2 means. You can form the CATV2 (CodersAgainstTiVo v2) and try to get TiVo to stop using the Linux Kernel for their product (because, believe me, they WON'T release the keys). Yeay, we lost Tivo's improvements on the kernel, and the posibility of having a working kernel if anyone feels like back-ingeneering TiVo for their own amusement. T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 the Linux community feel the same way, or read the GPLv2 the same way, and could be somehow stopped from enforcing the license the way they meant it. 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. The authors of the particular bits of code can complain about what tivo's doing, but since TiVo's using the linux kernel, and GPLv2 says These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Linus has the last word on it. IANAL, but as far as I can tell this reads as this licence applies to the whole, not to the parts by themselves, and so does who the holder is, I'd believe. So if you own a part of the kernel, then you can pursuit TiVo on your own, if they did direct use of that part especifically and break (in your opinion) what you feel GPLv2 means. You can form the CATV2 (CodersAgainstTiVo v2) and try to get TiVo to stop using the Linux Kernel for their product (because, believe me, they WON'T release the keys). Yeay, we lost Tivo's improvements on the kernel, and the posibility of having a working kernel if anyone feels like back-ingeneering TiVo for their own amusement. T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] Chinese translation of Documentation/HOWTO
A little issue about when is translation good I usually tell people to use vimtutor's example to set up syntax highlighting in vim. I usually only install OSs in english because translations tend to be poor and hard to comprehend. Now, I'm from argentina, and I live with a lingüist. He doesn't handle english very well, and he wanted to get rid of Windows, so we installed ubuntu, Locale:SP_ARG. vim is in spanish, and so is vimtutor. vimtutor's spanish translation doesn't have anything on syntax highlighting: the translation is poor. my point: IMHO it's better to have no translation than a poor one T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 of the kernel, then you can pursuit TiVo on your own, if they did direct use of that part especifically and break (in your opinion) what you feel GPLv2 means. You can form the CATV2 (CodersAgainstTiVo v2) and try to get TiVo to stop using the Linux Kernel for their product (because, believe me, they WON'T release the keys). Yeay, we lost Tivo's improvements on the kernel, and the posibility of having a working kernel if anyone feels like back-ingeneering TiVo for their own amusement. is still right. What I meant, at least by the end of that email, was that he has the last word on trying to stop TiVo from using The Linux Kernel. Each author can still go and stop them from using his part, and the derivative work that is The Linux Kernel. But that brings another question: what if TiVo decided to remove all code from the complaining parts and rewrite them? that wouldn't be The Linux Kernel anymore, but it would be a derivative work of all the parts that don't disagree with Tivoization, but is that legal? -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> 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 software must be certified, you are requireing the device to permit the software to be changed to an uncertified version.(to store credit card numbers and send them to a third party for example) Also another way of doing this is having every network ask the kernel for its key, and checking it. If it doesn't match a certified key, then not allowing you to access the network. Besides the fact that this would be a very costly approach, having every network needing to update their certified keys list every time TiVo and every other DVR vendor updates their kernels, it would also prevent any form of modified software to give you any of the TiVo's expected functionality: it would load, you would be able to play pong on it, but not watch or record TV, and they can't be blamed for it, because if the kernel's been tampered with, it might have been made so it saves the video unencrypted on the Harddrive, and it certainly *is* the network's right to stop you from doing so. So what the fuck do you want from them? T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 software must be certified, you are requireing the device to permit the software to be changed to an uncertified version.(to store credit card numbers and send them to a third party for example) Also another way of doing this is having every network ask the kernel for its key, and checking it. If it doesn't match a certified key, then not allowing you to access the network. Besides the fact that this would be a very costly approach, having every network needing to update their certified keys list every time TiVo and every other DVR vendor updates their kernels, it would also prevent any form of modified software to give you any of the TiVo's expected functionality: it would load, you would be able to play pong on it, but not watch or record TV, and they can't be blamed for it, because if the kernel's been tampered with, it might have been made so it saves the video unencrypted on the Harddrive, and it certainly *is* the network's right to stop you from doing so. So what the fuck do you want from them? T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 6/20/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm about this far to Linus'izing my wording and calling you stupid, > hypocrite, or bullshitter Knock yourself out, it will no doubt lend much moral and logic weight to your rhetoric. I might not have the best rhetoric, but I still hold my point about the credit card. Ask yourself: are you going to complain about Firefox (GPL'ed) not passing information unencrypted because it stops potential users (crackers ARE users) from doing what they want to with it? What's a security issue and what's not is a matter of legality and it's each part's duty to enforce legality in every way they can (I'm not saying that I agree, I'm an anarchist, but it's just how it goes). The content providers do it by not allowing DVRs to work if they're not secure, and DVRs are secure by doing whatever is legally possible to avoid crackers from bypassing security measures. On the other hand is legal for you to bypass those security measures as long as you don't make illegal use of those bypasses. The kernel TiVo distributes works on TiVo boxes, The kernel modified by you, is no longer the kernel TiVo distributes, and therefore the key that the original kernel had no longer applies to it. Try running your TiVo kernel on a PC, I think you won't be able to without a lot of modification.. and then again, once you do the proper modifying, you will be able to use it on your multimedia computer, and use all of the wonderful things you DIE to be able to modify the TiVo kernel for.. If you modify your TiVo kernel and say make it so it doesn't have an IDE controller module anymore, you won't be able to run it on your TiVo either.. at least not in any useful way, and would you be complaining? And someone said this already, if the signature is created via a known algorithm, and only the key isn't provided, saying that that's not GPLv2 compliant is like saying that I can't publish investigation work that was produced sharing via a secured network unless I also publish the SSH key I used through investigation, or the original value of the srand() if the investigation relied on random number generation, because the exact same results won't be reproducible. T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
> However, I don't see how this would ever require a company like Tivo > or Mastercard to have their networks play nice with a unit that has > been modified by the end user, potentially opening up some serious > security holes. Which is why the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated. 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, which is a serious security hole. TiVo would need to read, approve of, and sign any modified kernels the users intend to use on their hardware. If GPLv3 allows for this, it'd be doing exactly that Tomás -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and even less make sense. plus, and I repeat myself.. the program comes with no warranties whatsoever. and if your complains are purely moral, see it this way: if TiVo didn't sign their kernel, digital cable providers wouldn't give them their hash keys, and they wouldn't be able to show HD signals, rendering them useless, and making them go bankrupt... so they'd go BSD, because they ARE a company after all, and they are after The Moneys.. no? -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. -- US Code, Title 17, Section 101 so? Not GPL related, but casino machine software that needs to be approved by the casino regulation office in Argentina need to provide source, compiling instructions AND binaries, and the binaries must pass a diff check. This is impossible without a hacked compiler since the timestamps WILL differ. Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and even less make sense. T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
It's simple: they don't provide _complete_ source code. They keep the source code for the part of their Linux kernel images that provides the functionality "runs on Tivo DVRs". The GPL requires that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization does not agree that this is the problem but rather "TiVo circumvented this goal by making their products run programs only if the program's digital signature matches those authorised by the manufacturer of the TiVo." I'm downloading the sources now.. if they compile, then you're lying to me, right? Moreover, if I compile them as is, and I can run them on a TiVo (let's say upgrading the machine's kernel) then you're even more so.. if this is all true, then I read GPLv2 and it tells me (clipping and ** mine): 0. This License applies to any *program* or other work [...]. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, *a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications* [...] 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications [...] 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; [...] The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed *need*not*include*anything that is *normally*distributed (in *either* source or *binary* form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. so, it very clearly says that the program and the modifications come with NO WARRANTY of working, either expressed or implied, including the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (for example being able to run in your TiVo box). Other than that the licence says you can do whatever you want as long as you give out the source code. Let me put it this way: if TiVo gave microsoft the keys to run in TiVo, and Microsoft made a Windows Kernel for TiVo and it run, they would not be needing to give you any source codes because the box itself isn't GPL'ed and even if it was, there's no need to GLP stuff that work on a system based on The Program (say Adobe finally ports Photoshop into linux) but is not a modification or aggregation. Whatever checks the kernel's key is outside of the kernel itself, and probably not a modification of any GPL'ed software plus, what I marked in point 3. says that they don't need to give you anything that is normally distributed with the system the program runs on. They don't need to give you the source or the design of their hardware, or any embebbed software so.. you're free to modify the kernel, try to figure out what TiVo does for authentication and modify your binaries so they look what TiVo wants them to.. add some garbage bits in the end, or something. One more thing: even if the program they use to make their binaries TiVo-key-check compliant was GPL'ed, they don't need to give it to you, because the kernel does not use them. *IT* uses the compiled kernel as input data (and produce signed kernel binaries as output), not the other way around Tomás -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design. They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and provide source code for GPL'ed software... what's your problem? In order to play backuped games in, say, a PS2 I need to modify it's hardware. Gut it up, solder some cables to a chip that will bypass the signature key reading in the CD/DVDs. It's legal to mod it (it's my hardware, I paid for it) although it voids my warranty. It's also legal to copy the games (where I live) if I own the original, but we're no talking about DMR here. Not exactly Now, I'm sure some alike modification can be made to "help" TiVO bypassing the signature key check... and I'm sure it's legal. Again, what is your problem? Linus said it already, but TiVO has seen himself FORCED to protect its software for the very same reason Microsoft had to uncanningly overhead EVERYTHING in Vista: the Media (Fox, Universal, Etcetera) companies forced them too. But this is just a comment.. the thing is that I really can't see the problem T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design. They made a design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and provide source code for GPL'ed software... what's your problem? In order to play backuped games in, say, a PS2 I need to modify it's hardware. Gut it up, solder some cables to a chip that will bypass the signature key reading in the CD/DVDs. It's legal to mod it (it's my hardware, I paid for it) although it voids my warranty. It's also legal to copy the games (where I live) if I own the original, but we're no talking about DMR here. Not exactly Now, I'm sure some alike modification can be made to help TiVO bypassing the signature key check... and I'm sure it's legal. Again, what is your problem? Linus said it already, but TiVO has seen himself FORCED to protect its software for the very same reason Microsoft had to uncanningly overhead EVERYTHING in Vista: the Media (Fox, Universal, Etcetera) companies forced them too. But this is just a comment.. the thing is that I really can't see the problem T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
It's simple: they don't provide _complete_ source code. They keep the source code for the part of their Linux kernel images that provides the functionality runs on Tivo DVRs. The GPL requires that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization does not agree that this is the problem but rather TiVo circumvented this goal by making their products run programs only if the program's digital signature matches those authorised by the manufacturer of the TiVo. I'm downloading the sources now.. if they compile, then you're lying to me, right? Moreover, if I compile them as is, and I can run them on a TiVo (let's say upgrading the machine's kernel) then you're even more so.. if this is all true, then I read GPLv2 and it tells me (clipping and ** mine): 0. This License applies to any *program* or other work [...]. The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, *a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications* [...] 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications [...] 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; [...] The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed *need*not*include*anything that is *normally*distributed (in *either* source or *binary* form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. so, it very clearly says that the program and the modifications come with NO WARRANTY of working, either expressed or implied, including the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (for example being able to run in your TiVo box). Other than that the licence says you can do whatever you want as long as you give out the source code. Let me put it this way: if TiVo gave microsoft the keys to run in TiVo, and Microsoft made a Windows Kernel for TiVo and it run, they would not be needing to give you any source codes because the box itself isn't GPL'ed and even if it was, there's no need to GLP stuff that work on a system based on The Program (say Adobe finally ports Photoshop into linux) but is not a modification or aggregation. Whatever checks the kernel's key is outside of the kernel itself, and probably not a modification of any GPL'ed software plus, what I marked in point 3. says that they don't need to give you anything that is normally distributed with the system the program runs on. They don't need to give you the source or the design of their hardware, or any embebbed software so.. you're free to modify the kernel, try to figure out what TiVo does for authentication and modify your binaries so they look what TiVo wants them to.. add some garbage bits in the end, or something. One more thing: even if the program they use to make their binaries TiVo-key-check compliant was GPL'ed, they don't need to give it to you, because the kernel does not use them. *IT* uses the compiled kernel as input data (and produce signed kernel binaries as output), not the other way around Tomás -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. -- US Code, Title 17, Section 101 so? Not GPL related, but casino machine software that needs to be approved by the casino regulation office in Argentina need to provide source, compiling instructions AND binaries, and the binaries must pass a diff check. This is impossible without a hacked compiler since the timestamps WILL differ. Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and even less make sense. T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and even less make sense. plus, and I repeat myself.. the program comes with no warranties whatsoever. and if your complains are purely moral, see it this way: if TiVo didn't sign their kernel, digital cable providers wouldn't give them their hash keys, and they wouldn't be able to show HD signals, rendering them useless, and making them go bankrupt... so they'd go BSD, because they ARE a company after all, and they are after The Moneys.. no? -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
However, I don't see how this would ever require a company like Tivo or Mastercard to have their networks play nice with a unit that has been modified by the end user, potentially opening up some serious security holes. Which is why the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated. 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, which is a serious security hole. TiVo would need to read, approve of, and sign any modified kernels the users intend to use on their hardware. If GPLv3 allows for this, it'd be doing exactly that Tomás -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On 6/20/07, Dave Neuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm about this far to Linus'izing my wording and calling you stupid, hypocrite, or bullshitter Knock yourself out, it will no doubt lend much moral and logic weight to your rhetoric. I might not have the best rhetoric, but I still hold my point about the credit card. Ask yourself: are you going to complain about Firefox (GPL'ed) not passing information unencrypted because it stops potential users (crackers ARE users) from doing what they want to with it? What's a security issue and what's not is a matter of legality and it's each part's duty to enforce legality in every way they can (I'm not saying that I agree, I'm an anarchist, but it's just how it goes). The content providers do it by not allowing DVRs to work if they're not secure, and DVRs are secure by doing whatever is legally possible to avoid crackers from bypassing security measures. On the other hand is legal for you to bypass those security measures as long as you don't make illegal use of those bypasses. The kernel TiVo distributes works on TiVo boxes, The kernel modified by you, is no longer the kernel TiVo distributes, and therefore the key that the original kernel had no longer applies to it. Try running your TiVo kernel on a PC, I think you won't be able to without a lot of modification.. and then again, once you do the proper modifying, you will be able to use it on your multimedia computer, and use all of the wonderful things you DIE to be able to modify the TiVo kernel for.. If you modify your TiVo kernel and say make it so it doesn't have an IDE controller module anymore, you won't be able to run it on your TiVo either.. at least not in any useful way, and would you be complaining? And someone said this already, if the signature is created via a known algorithm, and only the key isn't provided, saying that that's not GPLv2 compliant is like saying that I can't publish investigation work that was produced sharing via a secured network unless I also publish the SSH key I used through investigation, or the original value of the srand() if the investigation relied on random number generation, because the exact same results won't be reproducible. T -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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? -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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? -- |_|0|_| |_|_|0| |0|0|0| - 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 at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
