[...]
it is very much relevant. By admitting that the key is not part of the
"work", you have lost all moral basis to claim control over it. Cutely
"defining it" into the source code just hides what this really is: the
key is a "payment" in exchange for the license, which payment goes
outside the scope of the software itself. It has no relevance to the
software work being "free", it reaches for paymeant beyond the work to
advance the FSF's agenda.
yes, a copyright license can be used to control other works, it can be
used to control the movement of non-copyrightable items as well (such as
money), but the GPL always tried to stay out of that kind of business.
Where does this "reach out for more resources in exchange for the
license" process stop? As the value of free software increases, will the
FSF iterate the GPL to ask for more and more consideration for the
privilege to license that software? (All in the name of achieving more
freedom of course.)
the linker script is still part of the whole work though - even if that
particular element might not be copyrightable in isolation. Likewise,
the kernel contains code that is in the public domain - to which
copyright protection does not extend either. But you cannot argue that
the Tivo 'key' is part of the whole work. It is part of the _hardware_.
The Tivo box is a compilation (at most a collection) of multiple works,
and allowing the GPL to jump over derivation/modification lines is
wrong. The GPLv2 certain doesnt do that land-grab.
Ingo
-
