> This argument is the obvious nonsense. "Runs on TiVO" is a property of
> the software that TiVO distributes -- such an important property that
> it would be nonsensical for them to distribute it with their hardware.
> But they do distribute it, and only the GPL allows them to.
Why does the importance of the property matter to the validity of the
argument?
From a legal standpoint, perhaps you're right, it doesn't matter whatthe function is. From a moral standpoint it should be obvious to you
> > Tivo's choice is an authorization decision. It is similar to
> > you not having
> > root access to a Linux box. Sorry, you can't run a modified
> > kernel on that
> > machine, but you can still modify the kernel and run it on any hardware
> > where authorization decisions don't stop you from doing so. The GPL was
> > never about such authorization decisions.
> Says judge Schwartz. Oops. That's right, you're not a judge in any
> legal jurisdiction, nor an author of the GPL.
Nice argument. I'm wrong because people can disagree with me.
DS