[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [18]   [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 Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Jun 18, 2007, wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 2007, wrote:
>>>> they want to prevent anyone from modifying the credit card machine to
>>>> store copies of all the card info locally.
>>> I see. Thanks for enlightening me.
>>>> you don't really answer this issue. since these boxes are required to
>>>> be sealed and physically anti-tamper, changing the ROM is not
>>>> acceptable.
>>> Given the ROM exception in GPLv3, I guess you could seal and
>>> anti-tamper it as much as you want, and leave the ROM at such a place
>>> in which it's easily replaceable but with signature checking and all
>>> such that the user doesn't install ROM that is not authorized by you.
>> 'sealed, but easy to replace ROM containing the programming' is a
>> contridiction.
>> if a local person can easily replace the programming it doesn't meet
>> the PCI requirements and therefor you just cannot use GPLv3 code for
>> this sort of application.
> How can someone easily replace the programming if there's signature
> checking and all?
> The sealing of the ROMmed software is accomplished by other means, but
> it's there. I shall mention that I'm not endorsing or recommending
> this practice, it might very well be copyright infringement even under
> GPLv1 and v2.

Ok, next question, could you do the same thing if you used a CD instead of
a ROM?

what makes a blob delivered via a network inherently different from the
same blob delivered via a plugin ROM or CD?

David Lang
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: 2007-06-18 23:55    [W:0.051 / U:1.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site