> On Jun 16, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
Sure, and you use the hardware to stop me from modifying the Linux on your
laptop. You are imposing an artificial restriction on what I can do with
Linux.
If the restriction is in the source code of the program, I can remove it. If
it's not, it's outside the scope of the GPL.
Exactly. And I have no *GPL* claims to my laptop either. The GPL doesn't
talk about who owns what hardware and it would be insane for it to do so.
Even though the TiVo hardware is yours, you have no more *GPL* claims to it
than you do to someone else's laptop. The GPL does not talk about who owns
what hardware.
The GPL (at least through version 2) is about free access to source code.
Right, and those freedoms include getting the source code if you get the
object code. They include being able to import the source code into other
projects with compatible licenses. They include being able to modify the
source code however you like.
They just do not include being able to use the source code on whatever
hardware you want because that hardware could be restricted for any number
of reasons. One of them could be that it's not yours. Another of them could
be that the platform itself has restrictions.
You are missing the point. Whether the laptop is mine or yours has no
bearing on the GPL terms. The GPL terms are about what you get when the
object code is distributed to you. To read into the GPL that you get certain
rights if you own hardware that runs GPL code and not if you rent such
hardware is just getting crazy. It's simply making arbitrary things up so
you get the results you want in the cases you care about and don't have to
deal with the crazy results you get in other cases you don't care about. It
makes no logical sense and is purely ad hoc.
Right, and TiVo has no GPL obligation to grant you access to their hardware
platform, even if you own a physical implementation of it.
Assume the access includes the right to download copies of the software, in
that case, it is distribution. For GPL purposes, all that matters is whether
the software is distributed or not, and the rights must be the same
regardless of anything else.
That's all lovely stuff, but it has nothing to do with anything. The GPL
doesn't care what your motivations are. If you can't fulfill your GPL
obligations, no matter how nice your intentions, you can't distribute at
all.
That's what it was about to many people, including Linus. It was about
getting source code.
DS
-
