lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
    From
    Date
    On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:

    > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
    >> Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
    >> includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
    >> theoretically accessible using the shipped kernel, but that nothing in
    >> the software available in the machine will let you get to. Further,
    >> sources (like everything else on disk) are encrypted, and you can only

    > Interesting scenario, it seems to comply with GPLv2 on the surface.

    > If that kernel doesn't actually allow access and wipes the source
    > partition to use it as swap on first boot, then no machine is actually
    > capable of reading the source.

    Granted, that was just adding insult to the injury ;-)

    Assume the sources are kept in the encrypted disk. Or that the
    sources are shipped in an encrypted CD, that only the machine itself
    can read, using hardware-assisted decryption.

    > Another gripe is that encrypted media are not customarily used for
    > software interchange.

    That the whole disk is encrypted is "just a technical detail". And
    it's not the media that's encrypted, it's the data in it. Surely both
    hard disks and CDs are media customarily used for software
    interchange. And there is often compressed and encrypted data and
    software in them.

    > You also cannot interpret the encrypted partition as source code because
    > a bit further down in section 3, it defines source code as,
    > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
    > making modifications to it."

    The encrypted partition is not the source code. It contains the
    source code. Very much like the computer, or the disk, or the boot
    partition, is not the GPLed program, it contains the GPLed program.
    That it's encrypted, signed, or hardware-protected, have all been
    claimed as reasons why they're outside the scope of the GPL and can be
    used to escape its intent in this or other recent threads.

    > You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
    > and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
    > they distribute.

    "We don't oppose that you do any of these things, once you get the
    source code. We just make it difficult (hopefully impossible) that
    you'll get to the source code in the first place."

    > They get sued for copyright infringement because they are not in
    > compliance with section 3 and the sources are released as a result.

    I don't think a copyright lawsuit can be generally expected to obtain
    this result. A court can stop the distributor from distributing in an
    infringing manner, but I don't think a court could force the
    distributing party to shell out source code. The distributing party
    might not even *have* source code in the first place. And even if she
    had, she might have no right to distribute it. Or she might not want
    to, and then a court *might* require them to do so, but that would be
    quite unusual.

    --
    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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-26 08:39    [W:8.508 / U:0.212 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site