Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Daniel Hazelton writes:

> Okay. So they give everyone the right to change the software on the box, but 
> on connection replace the modified stuff with the official versions. Is that 
> still a copyright problem? Absolutely, positively no. Is the current 
> situation any different? Not that I can tell - they've changed a reaction 
> into a preemptive act.

Again, it would be useful to limit discussions to this universe rather
than one that contains fictions necessary to your religious views.

(Separately, hardware connecting to Tivo's network is hardly related
to why they have DRM at all, and _entirely_ unrelated to what the GPL
permits; basing your argument on that nexus is stupid, but you have
obviously given up on your previous idea that the signature is somehow
an independent work of authorship and need some -- any -- theory to
continue holding to your general faith.)

>> > Nope. Because that isn't a right they have that is disconnected from
>> > copyright law. Or did you not read the entire post and just decide to try
>> > and make me look stupid?
>>
>> I read your post, but it was full of nonsense.  Tivo has every right
>> to restrict what connects to their network.  Tivo does not have the
>> right to infringe copyrights in order to make that restriction
>> effective.
>
> Okay - "nonsense" in this sense meaning "it proves me wrong, but I can't be 
> wrong, so it has no real meaning." I can accept that.

No; it means your position is at odds to fact, law and logic.  The
rest of my paragraph summarized why your argument is garbage.

Have you ever heard of the lawyer joke that if law is on your side,
you should pound the law; that if fact is on your side, you should
pound the facts; and that if neither are on your side, you should
pound the table?  You seem to be in the third state.

You suggested that Tivo's right to set terms for their network gave
them the right to modify the Linux kernel.  I twice pointed out in my
email that it did not -- that only the GPL gives them that right.  Any
right to modify the Linux kernel is inherently connected to copyright.
Kindly either refute or acknowledge that point: then this discussion
can advance.

>> You have said -- using enough words that you probably deceived
>> yourself -- that if Tivo distributes a specially mangled version of
>> Linux in order to restrict what connects to their network, and they
>> keep the mangling method proprietary, the GPL cannot shed light on
>> whether that hoarding is allowed.  Wrong: it can and does.
>
> But the mangling method isn't proprietary. What is proprietary is a number 
> that is input to a step of the process. (AFAICT the signing process is done 
> with proprietary tools, but the process itself isn't)

That does not help them at all.  In fact, it is probably *worse* for
Tivo if they are intentionally withholding input to a tool, since that
is closer to the traditional idea of source code.

Michael Poole