On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
>> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
>> download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
>> obtain the sources because the machine opted not to get them.
>> Now, the user can't distribute the binaries, because doing so without
>> being able to get the sources to pass them on would be copyright
>> infringement. Would a court see this as a restriction on distribution
>> imposed by the distributor? Or by the copyright holder?
> I'm not sure my point was clear (not even to myself), so let me try to
> clarify with a slightly different scenario.
http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/2007-07-01-gplv3-tivo-and-linux.en
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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]
