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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-17T20:50:23Z

On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:33:33 -0300
> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.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.

> It most definitely is

>> 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.

> That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.

AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.

Therefore, per the above, FCC doesn't mandate tivoization.

Is there anything else I'm missing that would show it does?

--
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}