On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:08:08PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
That was explained in next paragraph where I said that preventing access
sure sounds like a restriction on copying and modification, which is
where the GPL violation would be.
That doesn't really matter because the GPLv2 makes a distinction between
source code and binary object code. For instance in section 1 where it
says that you may copy and distribute the program's source code.
In section 2 where it talks about modifications it at first doesn't seem
to distinguish between source and binary, but it doesn't grant the right
that the resulting modified program will actually work. And yes, you can
still modify the kernel binary on the Tivo harddrive, it just won't boot
with the standard bootloader.
But there is an explicit no warranty clause in the GPLv2. Which I
believe is a good thing. If the license tried to enforce usability, i.e.
"continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case
prevented or interfered with", then any time a new release of the
program causes a regression for some users this would be a license
violation.
And when you scribble in the margin of a book you are also modifying it,
so what. I don't think you even need copyright permission, although you
will probably get into trouble if the book was borrowed from a library.
I don't see the relevance in the context of this discussion.
You can modify the source, recompile it, even binary patch the kernel on
the Tivo's harddrive. None of that is restricted. What is restricted is
the freedom to run the modified object code on Tivo's hardware. That
right is not granted by the GPLv2, and fitness for any purpose is
explicitly disclaimed in the NO WARRANTY section.
... skipped a whole bunch, you actually repeated yourself a couple of
times but the same answer applied, GPLv2 does not grant the right to be
able to run the (modified) program on their hardware, and none of the
granted rights, to copy, distribute and modify, are restricted ...
I'm assuming no written offer for access to the software is included.
Source are inaccessible, restricted the recipients rights to copy,
distribute and modify the source code, GPLv2 violation.
otherwise, source is accessible and recipient can copy, distribute and
modify.
If it doesn't download the sources then the binary is not accompanied by
the corresponding source code and since we assumed no written offer this
is a violation of section 3.
If it does download the source code but stores them into an encrypted
device or discards them then the user is restricted in his rights to
copy, distribute or modify the source code, and we have a violation of
section 6.
Sigh, same problem, same solution.
Yes, section 6 doesn't allow blocking access to the source code as it
restricts the recipients rights to copy, distribute and modify that
source code, so we have a license violation and the vendor has no right
to modify or distribute the program or any work based on the program.
Jan
-
