Tomas Neme writes:
>> 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?
People keep arguing that the signature is somehow not part of the
kernel or not subject to copyright law. I suspect they do not realize
how broad the legal definition of "computer program" is.
> 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.
This discussion is about copyright and the GPL, not legal quirks. I
am aware of a large number of silly results reached by law.
> 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?
The GPL does not guarantee anyone a viable business model. Following
it is not conditional on profitability. It is only conditional on
exercising rights that are granted by the GPL.
Michael Poole
-
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]
