There is a significant difference between what is a legally recognized
right and what no one has litigated over. I tend to not recognize the
latter as the former until I see specific backing for the idea that
the purported right has been recognized by law, a court, or all
involved parties.
I disagree that the two are the same -- for the fundamental reason
that you have not distributed the software on your laptop to me. Tivo
has distributed the software on Tivo DVRs to their customers. The act
of distribution is governed by (in the case of Linux) copyright law
and the GPL.
Do you propose that Tivo would (or could) sue a customer for some
non-copyright tort if the customer were to run a Linux kernel that has
not been authorized by Tivo on a Tivo-manufactured DVR? As far as I
can tell, the legal concerns in question are all copyright issues.
True. The GPL always about allowing someone to modify software that
they received from someone else. Tivo's Linux kernel images qualify
both as softare that they distribute to others and software that is
loaded onto hardware that they created. The concern at hand is not
about hardware that Tivo owns or software that Tivo never distributes
-- except where it is also source code for software that they *do*
distribute.
Michael Poole
-