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:

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.

From the kernel's COPYING file:

  NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".

See also the portion below.

the PVR software does exactly this, so the functionality as a PVR has nothing to do with the kernel by your own arguments.

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.

From section 3 of the GPL:

 However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
 not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source
 or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
 on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
 that component itself accompanies the executable.

but then how can the kernel impose any restriction on the BIOS? (and remember, you are the one arguing that it somehow does)

David Lang

these are both nonsense results.

.. which is why they are recognized to be different.

Michael Poole

-
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