lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    From
    Date
    Ingo Molnar writes:

    > * Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
    >>
    >> > it is a false statement on your part that the executable "does not
    >> > function properly" if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk
    >> > from the Tivo (it's a bog standard IDE harddisk), put into a nice Linux
    >> > PC, mount it, modify a bit in the kernel image header and it will likely
    >> > still boot just fine on that PC.
    >>
    >> Ok, try this: take the disk out, remove/replace/modify the signature,
    >> put the disk back in, and tell me what it is that fail to run.
    >
    > you mean back into the Tivo? That is not support for what you claimed.
    > You claimed the "executable does not function properly" if it lacks that
    > part (and you did not qualify your statement with anything). That was a
    > false statement, because it still works fine in just about any
    > bog-standard PC. A true statement would be: "the modified executable
    > does not function properly _in the Tivo_". It still works fine on a
    > general purpose PC.

    I claimed that. Unless I missed something, Alexandre did not.

    Ability to run on a standard PC is irrelevant. Tivo distributes the
    executable for the specific purpose of running on their hardware.
    Having the signature accepted by the hardware is a critical aspect of
    the executable. That purpose and function are what make the signature
    part of the work based on Linux.

    Courts consider purpose and intent when analyzing actions; except when
    one has bought the best available legal system, they would not follow
    your logic. (The role the signature plays in controlling access to a
    copyrighted work, per DMCA, might also separately identify it as part
    of the work based on Linux.)

    If I wished to distribute a kernel with extended functionality from a
    C file but not the C source files, under your logic I need not give
    them out -- a user could modify the binary and run it on a general
    purpose PC. Right? At most it would take clever linker tricks to
    make the change small enough.

    As to the suggestion that vendors would use another kernel: I would
    not mind. A huge fraction of the interesting and useful work in open
    source kernels happens in Linux (first or only). Using any third
    party software is a trade-off of what you get versus what you give up.

    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-17 15:05    [W:4.141 / U:0.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site