Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:52:48AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a
> > flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)?  Would that also
> > violate the "spirit" of the GPL?  Must any device that wishes to include
> > GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code
> > (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)?
> 
> As a PS to the GPL3 comment here is the basic difference
> 
> ROM	-	I can't modify the code on the device
> 		The creator can't modify the code further on the device
> 
> Tivo	-	I can't modify the code on the device
> 		The owner can modify the code 

Tivo gets sick of the endless flamewars on lkml, signs a copy
of QNX, pushes it out to the hardware.  No more Linux on Tivo.

You also can't replace that but Tivo can.  As I see it the two
are completely orthagonal:

a) Can anyone but the manufacturer upload new software into a
   a device without taking extreme measures (soldering a new
   public-key-containing-chip onto the board)

b) Is the software currently installed on a device licenced under
   a rule which requires the distributor to also distribute source
   code upon request.

Now I think it would reasonable to ask that the source code be able
to be built by [same compiler, same flags, same ...] to produce an
identical binary to the one running on the device so you can confirm
that it's exactly the same code.  That's separate from being able to
upload a changed binary.

Bron.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/