On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva ([email protected]) said:
>> And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
>> of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have
>> you)
> Wait, a signed filesystem image that happens to contain GPL code
> is now a derived work? Under what sort of interpretation does *that*
> occur?
Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed component, as
much as it is derived from the key?
Isn't the signature is a functional portion of the image, i.e., if I
take it out from the system, it won't work any more?
> (This pretty much throws the 'aggregation' premise in GPLv2 completely
> out.)
Not really. It could take some explicit distinguishing between
functional and non-functional signatures, but that's about it.
GPLv3 chose a different path to make this clarification.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
