[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

    > 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

    If you can cite some legal reason there is a difference, I would be quite

    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.)


    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: 2007-06-21 00:53    [W:2.143 / U:10.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site