On Jun 21, 2007, Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
Yes. Particularly to what Alan Cox and his legal counsel told me. A
single copyright holder able and willing to enforce the license
against tivoization is enough. What part of this don't you
understand?
It doesn't grant TiVo the right to distribute the program without
corresponding source code.
They fail to distribute the source code to the functional signature
derived from the kernel binary.
Kaboom!
As for the right to run the program, I've also explained why in
Brazilian copyright law this is a right granted by the license,
because the license says that right is unrestricted.
Kaboom!
Says you (or perhaps you're just repeating what you heard and want to
believe).
But what did your lawyer say about it? In reference to which
jurisdiction?
Additional permissions to combine are not permission to relicense.
Look at section 13 of GPLv3dd4 and of Affero GPLv3dd1. That's the
sort of additional permission I'm talking about here.
The same kind of additional permission that GPLed projects that use
openssl adopt.
--
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}
-
