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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200706141033.22605.bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:33:20 +0200
From:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Oh, good, let's take this one.
>
>   if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
>   you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>
> So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
>
> TiVo retains the right to modify that copy of Linux as it sees fit.
>
> It doesn't give the recipients the same right.
>
> Oops.
>
> Sounds like a violation of the spirit to me.
>
> Sounds like plugging this hole would retain the same spirit.

Note that Harald Welte has already managed to force Siemens to unlock 
a "tivoized" Linux router with the GPLv2 in Germany. German contract law 
values intention when the contract has no specific clause that deals with 
the issue, and in German law, an accepted license is a contract.

So the fact that tivoizing Linux is against the spirit of the GPLv2 is a 
court-proof fact, not just some speculation.

What about if your GPL program ends up in a piece of hardware (e.g. a ROM, 
or an embedded ROM, or if it's some GPL code from OpenCores, as gate 
netlist in silicon)? My interpretation is that you need a permission from 
the author for doing that, unless there's an easy way to replace it with a 
modified copy (e.g. if you put the OpenCores stuff into an FPGA, replacing 
the configuration PROM would do it).

Some people have difficulties with intentions of contracts rather than 
direct rules. That may be due to different rules in different countries. In 
continental Europe, contract law usually bases on Code Napoleon, and 
there, "good faith" is an important principle (and "good faith" means that 
the intention is more important than the actual coded practices). In the 
roman law that was used before and has survived in countries who didn't let 
Napoleon in (like the UK and the USA), it's slightly different. But a 
contract or a license still is not a program where anything that isn't said 
explicitely isn't said at all.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped