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]

Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:15:14 -0400
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Daniel Hazelton" <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	"Bongani Hlope" <bhlope@...b.co.za>,
	"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

On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, consider non-derived work.
>
> I did, you snipped it out:
>
> >> If your change is not a derived work, you're not bound by the terms
> >> of the GPL as far as the change is concerned, so the GPL has no say
> >> whatsoever as to how you must release it.  If you choose the GPL,
> >> then you're a licensor, and the requirements to pass on all the
> >> rights you have do not apply.
>

Yes, I did, thank you for putting the text back in.

> > Because I am distributing whole program
> > I have to do it under GPL.

Please notice this sentence. GPL still influences the way I release
stuff (if I want to release the work as whole) but it does not mean
passing all rigths I could possibly have.

> > However I still have the right to
> > distribute just the portion that is written by me under whatevel
> > license I want but you as a recepient of GPLed whole do not get this
> > right. IOW I am not passing all the rights _I have_.
>
> I see what you mean.  IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works.
>
> When your work is not a derived work, the GPL that applies to the rest
> of the program does not make you a licensee, and it only covers your
> work if you choose to license it that way.  And then, you're the sole
> licensor of that piece of the work.

So, with regard to TIVO, why are you saying that GPL shoudl affect
their hardware (I assume that key check/enforce is done in firmware
taht is separate from kernel image)?

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/