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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-16T18:43:47Z

On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <tim.post@netkinetics.net> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> >> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> >> >> that legitimate enough of a reason to restrict the hardware?
> >> >
> >> > Can I submit that they could just rent the use of their machines?
> >>
> >> I don't think this would escape the wording of section 6 in GPLv3dd4:
> >>
> >> [...] User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or
> >> for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is
> >> characterized), [...]
> >>
> >> and IMHO that's as it should be to defend the freedoms of the user.
> >
> > In the case of renting a machine you can try to legislate new laws all
> > you want. It doesn't make a difference. There are certain rights you
> > don't get when renting something that you do when you own it.
>
> You mean renting the computer with the software in it is not
> distribution of the software?

It is. But you don't have the same rights to a rented machine as you do to one
you have purchased. In fact, in renting a machine you have to agree to
a "renters contract" - and that can state *whatever* the person that is
renting the machine to you feels like having it state. And yes, they can even
have terms in it that violate the GPL. Not that a "renters contract" ("rental
agreement" or whatever they call them in your jurisdiction) that has those
terms can *legally* violate the GPL - but it doesn't stop them from existing.

DRH

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.