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

["Tomas Neme" <lacrymology@gmail.com>]

> In the sense that he can decide to remove all contributions from
> dissenting authors, yes, he does.  But he can't impose his more lax
> interpretation upon other authors.  Under copyright, it's the more

yes, I saw my argument going weak as I wrote it, but what I said later:

> So if you own a part of the kernel, then you can pursuit TiVo on your
> own, if they did direct use of that part especifically and break (in
> your opinion) what you feel GPLv2 means. You can form the CATV2
> (CodersAgainstTiVo v2) and try to get TiVo to stop using the Linux
> Kernel for their product (because, believe me, they WON'T release the
> keys). Yeay, we lost Tivo's improvements on the kernel, and the
> posibility of having a working kernel if anyone feels like
> back-ingeneering TiVo for their own amusement.

is still right. What I meant, at least by the end of that email, was
that he has the last word on trying to stop TiVo from using The Linux
Kernel. Each author can still go and stop them from using his part,
and the derivative work that is The Linux Kernel.

But that brings another question: what if TiVo decided to remove all
code from the complaining parts and rewrite them? that wouldn't be The
Linux Kernel anymore, but it would be a derivative work of all the
parts that don't disagree with Tivoization, but is that legal?

--
|_|0|_|
|_|_|0|
|0|0|0|
-
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/