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

david
2007-06-18T21:53:18Z

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Jun 18, 2007, david@lang.hm wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 2007, david@lang.hm wrote:
>>>
>>>> they want to prevent anyone from modifying the credit card machine to
>>>> store copies of all the card info locally.
>>>
>>> I see. Thanks for enlightening me.
>>>
>>>> you don't really answer this issue. since these boxes are required to
>>>> be sealed and physically anti-tamper, changing the ROM is not
>>>> acceptable.
>>>
>>> Given the ROM exception in GPLv3, I guess you could seal and
>>> anti-tamper it as much as you want, and leave the ROM at such a place
>>> in which it's easily replaceable but with signature checking and all
>>> such that the user doesn't install ROM that is not authorized by you.
>
>> 'sealed, but easy to replace ROM containing the programming' is a
>> contridiction.
>
>> if a local person can easily replace the programming it doesn't meet
>> the PCI requirements and therefor you just cannot use GPLv3 code for
>> this sort of application.
>
> How can someone easily replace the programming if there's signature
> checking and all?
>
> The sealing of the ROMmed software is accomplished by other means, but
> it's there. I shall mention that I'm not endorsing or recommending
> this practice, it might very well be copyright infringement even under
> GPLv1 and v2.

Ok, next question, could you do the same thing if you used a CD instead of
a ROM?

what makes a blob delivered via a network inherently different from the
same blob delivered via a plugin ROM or CD?

David Lang