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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:

[email protected] writes:

no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
code.

Why not?  The digital signature is a statement (which translates
roughly to "Tivo approves this") to be used in a computer in order to
bring about a certain result.  That result is making it boot on the
PVR.  Source code simply means the original forms or inputs used to
generate machine-readable statements.

but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks the signature is completely independant. and finally the PVR functions are not part of the kernel (and not under the GPL in any case)

if your argument was true then Oracle releasing a database appliance would require Oracle to give you the source to their database since it's part of 'bringing about a certain result' namely operating as a database server.

if your argument was true then releasing a GPL package for windows would require that the windows kernel source be released, after it it's nessasary for 'brining about a certain result' namely letting your code run.

these are both nonsense results.

David Lang
-
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]
  Powered by Linux