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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-18T20:51:06Z

On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

>> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>>
>> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
>> > software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
>> > tamperproof to random end consumers).
>>
>> But this is not tivoization.

>> Tivoization is a manufacturer using technical measures to prevent the
>> user from tampering (*) with the device, *while* keeping the ability
>> to tamper with it changes itself.

> You're splitting those hairs might finely.

And I was wrong. Please see the "mea culpa on the meaning of
tivoization" thread.

> So when you ask whether there's any law that "requirse tivoization",
> you won't accept a law that creates a situation where the only
> practical solution is tivoization?

I guess it amounts to what you mean by "*only* practical solution".

"I can't fit the corresponding sources in this CD, so you won't get
them." is no excuse to disrespect users' freedoms, why should this be
different?

>> Taking it further, do you know whether any such law requires
>> *worldwide* tivoization, as in, applying the restrictions in the law
>> even outside its own jurisdiction?

> A law that requires certaint things be tamper-proof, where engineering
> realities requires that they be controlled by software and the software be
> upgradable (for security reasons and for support of future protocol
> revisions) isn't good enough for you?

"engineering realities" is the weak point of your argument, see above.
Is ROM still software? Is replaceable ROM still software?

--
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}