Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Thursday 28 June 2007 00:45:18 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
> > Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
> > do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
> > but not the "modification and copying" requirements. These are
> > granted early in the license and covered by the "no further
> > restrictions" clause.
> >
> > You have to be able to copy and modify the source code for it to
> > comply with the GPL.
>
> Let's hope courts see it this way.

I'm sure they will. Section 0 of the GPLv2 states what the license covers. 
Copying & modification are two of those things.

> But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
> copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
> someone from copying or modifying the binary?  Or is that not so?

As has been repeatedly stated, on a TiVO or similar device they can stop you 
from running a user-built binary. They cannot, and do not, stop you from 
accessing the copy on the disc. They don't even prevent modification of it. 
What they do is stop the hardware from running the modified form.

> Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
> Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
> source or object form.

I can't argue with this.

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.