Comments on: GPLv3 won’t affect Linux-based products

By: Ian Murdock

Ian Murdock — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:32:11 +0000

The larger point is that the GPL cannot affect a piece of code unless it is a derivative work. The mere act of bundling with a GPL program does not create a derivative work. Neither does calling a GPL program from the command line. It’s not even clear that linking creates a derivative work. So, the notion that the shift to GPL v3 is going to impact all sorts of things simply isn’t true—it can, by definition, only affect derivative works. Yes, if TiVo ships shellutils (modified or no), they have to provide the source code to its customers, but that’s no different than GPL v2.

-ian

By: Joe Buck

Joe Buck — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:08:51 +0000

Here’s my understanding: let’s assume that some component that Tivo needs to run is licensed under GPLv3. Tivo makes a modified version of it. They digitally sign the executable, and the Tivo box checks that signature before agreeing to run the application.

Under GPLv2, they can release the source, and people can read the source, but they can’t use that source to build code that will run in a Tivo, because they don’t have the appropriate key to sign the executable with.

Under GPLv3, they can no longer use this approach. Since the executable won’t run without a signature, they have to either provide all recipients of the binary with the means to produce their own modified, signed, runnable executables, or they can’t distribute.

However, it appears Linus objects to this model, so the kernel will continue to use GPLv2. If he does, then RMS’s plan to take free software away from the DRM people will fail, as there is too much free software they can still use.

By: Dylan Thurston

Dylan Thurston — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:38:13 +0000

You’re misunderstanding something. The TiVo application itself need not be released, but if they use any packages licensed under GPLv3 (say, shellutils, since it seems the kernel itself is unlikely to be relicensed), then according to the proposed terms they won’t be able to “deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License”, namely the right to modify the shellutils on the device.

By: Sauer

Sauer — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:42:17 +0000

Linux will not be placed under the terms of GPL v3. Linux himself said so: Lihttp://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273