[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] GPL non compliance? was Re: GPL non-compliance, was Re: GPLv3
dr at jones.dk
Tue Apr 26 18:26:30 EDT 2011
On 11-04-26 at 04:28pm, John Watlington wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote:
> >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>> Tivoization - as I understand it - is when the hardware locks the
> >>> code in a way so that it can be executed but sources for the
> >>> executed code is not available. That, I believe, is not the case
> >>> for GPL-licensed code on the XOs even when the XOs are locked
> >>> down.
> >>> GPL code must be _readable_ - it need not be executable.
> >> Actually, I believe that GPL v3 "fixed" that oversight.
> > How, more specifically?
> This is being thrashed to death on other threads that I was ignoring
> when I replied to this one. Basically, the "anti-tivoization" clause
> of GPL v3 prevents use of the code if someone can't install a modified
> version of the code. Under GPL v3, it is no longer sufficient to
> provide source code, you also have to provide a way of running a
> modified version of that source code on the hardware distributed with
> the original code.
> As Martin says, GPL v3 moves from requiring that modifications be
> shared, to telling you what you can and cannot do with the code.
Did Martin really acknowledge that XOs - if considered _transportation_
devices for Sugar - would cause GPLv3 to be violated?!?
In that case I stand down and shut up - then I do not understand GPLv3
well enough to argue about it!
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the IAEP