> This argument is the obvious nonsense. "Runs on TiVO" is a property of
> the software that TiVO distributes -- such an important property that
> it would be nonsensical for them to distribute it with their hardware.
> But they do distribute it, and only the GPL allows them to.
Why does the importance of the property matter to the validity of the
argument?
> Linus' key is not required to use the software Linus distributes under
> the GPL, by contrast.
Why does whether or not the key is required to use the software matter? It
may be impossible to use a Linux kernel on a particular piece of hardware
without the BIOS, that doesn't mean the BIOS source code is part of the
kernel source code even if the kernel is shipped for that hardware.
> > Tivo's choice is an authorization decision. It is similar to
> > you not having
> > root access to a Linux box. Sorry, you can't run a modified
> > kernel on that
> > machine, but you can still modify the kernel and run it on any hardware
> > where authorization decisions don't stop you from doing so. The GPL was
> > never about such authorization decisions.
> Says judge Schwartz. Oops. That's right, you're not a judge in any
> legal jurisdiction, nor an author of the GPL.
Nice argument. I'm wrong because people can disagree with me.
DS
-
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]
