BT Home Hub: Continued violation

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr  9, 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud at engelfriet.net> wrote:
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On Apr  6, 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud at engelfriet.net> wrote:
>>>> Because that language does not include authorization codes or keys
>>>> you may need to generate such codes in order to produce a binary
>>>> that is accepted by the device. 
>>> Why wouldn't these be part of the corresponding source code, if
>>> they're necessary to produce the installed binary?
> 
>> They're not necessary to produce the binary. Nothing in GPLv2
>> requires me to provide the codes to enable installation.
> 
> Err...  Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote above.  Aren't these
> codes necessary to "produce a binary that is accepted by the device"?

Nothing in GPLv2 requires me to enable others to "produce a binary that is 
accepted by the device" on which my original binary resides. I'm required to 
give out source code and scripts used to control compilation and installation.

The codes are not source code and they are not scripts either. Therefore they 
are out of scope.

> Where do you draw the line between these two cases, assuming they're
> different?

I'm not sure what two cases you are referring to.

>> I agree that this is one of the reasons GPLv3 added language to
>> explicitly require such codes.
> 
> Yep, many clarifications went in.

In my view this is a further restriction and not a clarification of an existing 
obligation.

>> That means I am now able to change and recompile the sources of,
>> say, /bin/ls. But my system administrator does not permit me to
>> overwrite /bin/ls with my binary. Can I demand the root password?
> 
> Err...  You don't need to overwrite the old /bin/ls to be
> able to run the modified program, do you?

I cannot install the modified version of /bin/ls. Sure, I can install ~/bin/ls 
but that is not the same thing.

Do you think Tivo could legally use signed GPLv3 kernels if they offered a 
sandbox (virtual machine) in the device where you could install and run modified 
versions of that kernel, but without actual access to the hardware? That's a 
pretty neat workaround.

The intent of the anti-Tivo clause in GPLv3 is to ensure you can overwrite a 
binary that's conveyed to you. So by the same token I should be able to 
overwrite the /bin/ls that's conveyed to me.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
               Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/