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: <20070614025248.6e0f72f0@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:52:48 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Chris Adams <cmadams@...aay.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

> What if TiVo had put the kernel in a burned-in ROM (not flash, or on a
> flash ROM with no provision for reprogramming it)?  Would that also
> violate the "spirit" of the GPL?  Must any device that wishes to include
> GPL code include additional hardware to support replacing that code
> (even if that hardware is otherwise superfluous)?

As a PS to the GPL3 comment here is the basic difference

ROM	-	I can't modify the code on the device
		The creator can't modify the code further on the device

Tivo	-	I can't modify the code on the device
		The owner can modify the code 

One is an implicit limitation of the hardware (just like I can't run
openoffice on a 4MB PC even though the license gives me the right to
try), the other is an artificial restriction.

One case is witholding freedom in the GPL sense by one party while
keeping it themselves, the other is a limitation of the system
inevitably imposed on everyone.

-
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/