> > > able to run you modifications on the same hardware? > ^^^^ > > Come on! The whole idea of software is to have it run on some HW. > ^^^^ > > Why would I want to change it in the first place if I can't run it ? > > See the difference? Forgive my poor mastery of the english language and me letting slip this inconsistency. The first sentence you cited was a general remark IMO valid outside of this context and possibly ill placed as it was. The second sentence pertains the key msg I was trying to deliver and apparently I did a poor job in phrasing it so let me redo it: Why would I want to change the SW targetted for some HW if I can't run the changed version on said HW ? [note that for the TiVo case I possibly would not own or be able to own similar HW being able to run my modified SW; so even some HW would not be triggered either] ^^^^ Remember I'm discussing my understanding of the spirit of the GPL, not whether the legal part actually does give me that right enforceable in court. Here is another stmt which is valid outside of this context AFAIAC: If the GPLv2 does not legally give me the right that I think its spirit gives me then the legal phrases should be changed to achieve that. Whether or not others share my view of what the spirit of the GPL implies is completely theirs to decide and if they differ they likely won't agree on my previous stmt either. Fine with me. And this leads to another observation: IMO this thread is partly fueled by a fundamental mixing of PoVs. Some argue based on their perceived view of the spirit of the GPL and some based on the actual legal phrases in GPLv2 and GPLv3 and whether or how they reflect the perceived spirit. Best wishes, Michael -- Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Michael Gerdau email: [email protected] GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- References:
- Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- From: Michael Gerdau <[email protected]>
- Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Prev by Date: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Next by Date: Re: [2/2] 2.6.22-rc4: known regressions v3
- Previous by thread: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Next by thread: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Index(es):