From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757288AbXFNU34 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:29:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751589AbXFNU3q (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:29:46 -0400 Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com ([72.14.246.241]:44340 "EHLO ag-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753144AbXFNU3p (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:29:45 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YI/5WKrDboGm4keZayrHg4IiblSP5I5zvi9wqZAhDXJ81duo5ZARNXBNDW0yFvare7pb0zx/b2aehFboNGRMpnmUCu0uq8aPun0osTYiFDCgZYh4r1Rk+GzVLnh2Iu62PokkrNnDxKKXHrlpk3T0Ak9B5UfjZKoB+6k+o2BZY6I= Message-ID: <4671A528.5040300@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:29:28 -0400 From: Florin Malita User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (X11/20070116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Oliva CC: Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706140305.50095.dhazelton@enter.net> <46717C58.8050501@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/14/2007 02:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> No, by this twisted logic Tivo *cannot* modify that particular copy >> any more than you can. They can modify *another* copy (just like you) >> and they can *replace* the copy in your device with the new version >> (unlike you). >> > > Again, replacing is one form of modification. > No, it's not: replacing does not create derivative work. Modification does. You've chosen to attach a physical dimension to "program copy" and I'm arguing that even under this distorted line of reasoning you can't support your position: > The customer gets the copy that TiVO stored in the hard disk in > the device it sells. And it's that copy that the customer is entitled > to modify because TiVO is still able to modify it. * Tivo takes public sources, modifies them and builds a brand new blob * Tivo installs this new copy on the device, most likely side-by-side with the old one - notice how the new copy is derived from public sources and has absolutely nothing to do with the old version (heck, it can be a totally different kernel for what it's worth) * Tivo deletes the old copy from the device It seems pretty obvious that the only right Tivo is withholding is the right to install new versions on the device - they never do (and really never could) "modify" the physical copy on your device (which is your main argument). > What do you think you do when you save a modified source file in your > editor? Don't skip the part where the in-memory version started as an exact copy of the original being replaced. Notice the difference? ;) --- fm