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

From: Jesper Juhl
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 02:59:40 EST

On 15/06/07, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why can't you understand that the GPL v2 is a *software* license, it
> doesn't cover hardware at all.

The GPLv2 is a copyright license not a software licence, indeed there is
no such thing as a 'software licence'. It deals with the circumstances
and manner in which you are permitted (by the author) to make copies of
their work, to modify their work and in some cases to perform their work
(plus other sundry rights). Copyright law doesn't care whether the object
in question is as abstract as computer source code (providing it has been
'fixated' in some form) or a two hundred foot high art installation - or
a combination of the two.

Right. My bad.

So irrespective of the whole pointless debate going on you are trying to
draw lines that don't exist in the first place.

> I can't know for a fact what TiVO wants, but I can guess.

You could also do your research.

I have absolutely no idea where to go look something like that up :-(

> All quite valid reasons in my opinion.

and all wrong.

Look up the owning and controlling interests in Tivo and you'll find the
correct reason - stopping you doing evil things like keeping movies
you've recorded or uploading them to the internet [which ironically of
course is the entire effect of the whole 'convergence' thing]

Hmm, wouldn't that be my guess nr. 2? A way to use the hardware to
break the law...

Anway, the whole point of my post was mainly to /try/ and say that the
GPL gives you a right to obtain source code for modifications, but it
doesn't say anything about being able to run a compiled version of
that source on any specific hardware.

Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post
Plain text mails only, please
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at