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: <4671589F.60306@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:02:55 +0100
From:	Matt Keenan <tank.en.mate@...il.com>
To:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
CC:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	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" <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

Michael Poole wrote:
> Matt Keenan writes:
>
>   
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>     
>>> Err, no.  Software, per legal definitions in Brazil, US and elsewhere,
>>> require some physical support.  That's the hard disk in the TiVO DVR,
>>> in this case.  I don't see how this matters, though.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> I'm now intrigued, where are these (Brazilian and US) definitions
>> stipulated, and under what authority?
>>     
>
> In the US, 17 USC 101 (the "Definitions" section of the title dealing
> with Copyright) makes this definition:
>
>     A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be
>     used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
>     a certain result.
>
> As its purpose is to outline the scope of copyright law, this
> definition is made under the authority granted to Congress by Article
> I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
>
>   
But where is the part that says it "requires some physical support"? It
says what it is; "a set of statements or instructions", how it should be
used; "to be used directly or indirectly in a computer", and what
purpose it serves; "in order to bring about a certain result", but it
doesn't seem to indicate that it "requires physical support" aka needing
some physical representation. I suspect this argument boils down to the
philosophical debate of whether ideas (in this case software) can be
truely devoid of the physical.

Matt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/