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

Bron Gondwana
2007-06-14T04:10:56Z

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:52:48AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a
> > flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)? Would that also
> > violate the "spirit" of the GPL? Must any device that wishes to include
> > GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code
> > (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)?
>
> As a PS to the GPL3 comment here is the basic difference
>
> ROM - I can't modify the code on the device
> The creator can't modify the code further on the device
>
> Tivo - I can't modify the code on the device
> The owner can modify the code

Tivo gets sick of the endless flamewars on lkml, signs a copy
of QNX, pushes it out to the hardware. No more Linux on Tivo.

You also can't replace that but Tivo can. As I see it the two
are completely orthagonal:

a) Can anyone but the manufacturer upload new software into a
a device without taking extreme measures (soldering a new
public-key-containing-chip onto the board)

b) Is the software currently installed on a device licenced under
a rule which requires the distributor to also distribute source
code upon request.

Now I think it would reasonable to ask that the source code be able
to be built by [same compiler, same flags, same ...] to produce an
identical binary to the one running on the device so you can confirm
that it's exactly the same code. That's separate from being able to
upload a changed binary.

Bron.