> This is a very limited reading of the GPL that leaves out one of its
Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
further restriction? Simple -- anyone who is bothered by that restriction
can remove it on any hardware for which they have the right to load modified
software. Anyone who does not have the right to load modified software on
some hardware simply does not have the right to change it.
Why is that not a "further restriction"? It means that I can't load kernel
modules on hardware that I don't have the right to load modified software
on.
Right, which is the freedom to modify the software. The freedom to get the
source code. The freedom to use the source code however you want, absent
legitimate authorization decisions to the contrary.
I agree. However, "you can't load your modified sofware on *MY* hardware" is
not a further restriction. If it was, we get absurdities.
Definitely.
Absolutely.
Of course it is. They have the authorization right on that hardware, and
they don't have that right on my laptop. For any piece of hardware, there
has to be someone who decides who can and can't choose what software runs on
that hardware.
That would mean it doesn't permit the distribute to state "BTW, you can't
install, modify or run this software on *OUR* computers that run our
corporate network". Don't you see how obviously absurd that is?
Someone has to be authorized to decide what software runs on some particular
piece of hardware. The GPL cannot mean that other people get to modify and
run software on that particular piece of hardware.
I agree. However, that doesn't mean that people who own or control
particular pieces of hardware can't put authorization barriers that prevent
you from running whatever software you want on thos pieces of hardware.
Because it becomes the only piece of hardware in the entire universe on
which the GPL gives you the right to run the software. On every other piece
of hardware, you must obtain that right from whoever owns the right to
decide what software runs on that hardware.
Don't you see that the rule that "this one thing cannot be special" makes
that one thing special since everything else *can* be special.
You can adapt it to your own needs, you just can't run it on hardware you
don't fully own. You do not fully own the TiVo because you do not own the
right to run modified software on it. It is just like *my* laptop -- you
don't own the right to choose what software runs on it. Someone has to have
that right, and in the case of TiVo, it's not you.
I don't know what patent you are talking about.
No more than having to be 'root' to load a kernel module. You are free to
remove it from any hardware for which you have the right to choose what
software runs.
DS
-
