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

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

David Schwartz writes:

>> I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong.  The
>> wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
>> complete source code for it.
>
> Why are you not complaining that Linus does not distribute the keys he uses
> to sign kernel source distributions? If a digital signature is part of the
> distribution, why is the key used to produce that signature not part of the
> distribution?
>
> If you can cite some legal reason there is a difference, I would be quite
> impressed.
>
> In any event, the argument is obvious nonsense. The signature is merely
> aggregated with the kernel. Cooperation, dependent function, and convergent
> design can't break mere aggregation or you get ridiculous results. (For
> example, a device shipped with the Linux kernel and some applications would
> have to GPL all the applications.)

Do you make it a habit to pose ranty questions to people while neither
attributing their text nor cc'ing them?  Especially when you claim the
person's argument is "obvious nonsense", it seems quite rude.

(Since you have dismissed my argument as nonsense before hearing my
response, I will not bother answering your question.  Since you are
acting like a troll, I will dismiss you as one.  Most of this list has
already dismissed your rather unique -- I would even say frivolous --
idea of how far "mere aggregation" goes: I, for one, have better
things to do than explain why a C file is not a "mere aggregation" of
the functions it contains.)

Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/