> On Jun 20, 2007,
david@lang.hm wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2007, Andrew McKay <amckay@iders.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I don't see how this would ever require a company like Tivo
>>>> or Mastercard to have their networks play nice with a unit that has
>>>> been modified by the end user, potentially opening up some serious
>>>> security holes.
>>>
>>> Which is why the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated.
>
>> so if the BIOS checked the checksum of the boot image and if it found
>> it wasn't correct would disable the video input hardware but let you
>> boot the system otherwise it would be acceptable to you and the GPLv3?
>
> I don't think so, but IANAL. What do you think? Here's what I
> think to be the relevant passages.
>
> [...] The information must suffice to ensure that the continued
> functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or
> interfered with solely because modification has been made.
>
> [...]
>
> The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include
> a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or
> updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the
> recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or
> installed. Network access may be denied when the modification
> itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network
> or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the
> network.