[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    On 06/15/2007 10:56 AM, Michael Poole wrote:
    > The GPL cares about the key
    > used to generate an integral part of the executable form of the GPLed
    > work.

    GLPv2 doesn't: why do you think the digital signature is an integral
    part of the executable? It can be a totally separate blob, distributed
    via a separate channel and even stored at a different location than the
    executable. Does it still look like an integral part of the executable
    to you then?

    (unless of course you're trying to argue that the hash itself is a
    derivative work, but that has already been refuted many times before.)

    > The executable does not function properly if it lacks that
    > part.

    It works just fine given the right environment. The right environment
    may be some other hardware (without DRM restrictions) or the DRMed
    device + an authorized digital signature. The digital signature is not
    part of your executable.

    Do you honestly believe GPLv2 requires the distributor to provide you
    with the right environment for your modified copy to "function
    properly"? I would say it doesn't, but feel free to point me to specific
    sections which *state* otherwise. AFAICT, GPLv2 is specifically limited
    to "copying, distribution and modification". How you use (or don't use,
    or can't use) your modified copy is totally outside its scope.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-15 17:57    [W:0.021 / U:12.544 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site