On Friday 15 June 2007 02:29:32 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > As a simple matter of fact, the *only* activities covered by the GPLv2
> > are "copying, distributing and modifying". It says so in the license
> > itself.
>
> Unless I have explicitly installed linux myself in the box, I have
> received the binary from them, so it can fall in the distribution
> case.
Sorry if you missed the rest of the discussion, but the above statement was a
rebuttal of the "The GPLv2 intended to guarantee me the right to run the
software on any given piece of hardware" argument that has been used as the
justification for the addition of the "tivoization" language to the GPLv3. As
I stated, I fail to see how "running" the program is, in any way, intended by
the license, since it *explicitly* states that it only covers "copying,
distribution and modification". The exact place where it does that
is "Section 0, paragraph 2, first sentence". I'll quote it here again:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
