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: <200706132349.42044.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:49:41 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, 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 Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:56:40 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:43:14PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> > > > > Either private keys required to run the kernel on the hardware are
> > > > > always considered part of "the complete source code" or they are
> > > > > never part of it.
> > > >
> > > > No. It all depends on the use-case. If the hardware is designed for
> > > > the user to install their own, custom versions of the code on then
> > > > the signing keys are part of the source as defined by the GPLv2.
> > > >
> > > > If, OTOH, the hardware was never meant for the end-user to install
> > > > custom versions of the software on, then while the signing keys are
> > > > still *technically* part of the source, in practice they are not.
> > > > Why? Because in most of those cases the end-user isn't granted the
> > > > right to install and run custom binaries on the hardware. If the
> > > > manufacturer provided the signing keys they'd be facilitating the
> > > > commission of a crime. (call it "Breach of Contract")
> > > >...
> > >
> > > Repetition doesn't let wrong things become true.
> > >
> > > Where does the GPLv2 talk about the distinction you are trying to make
> > > based on distributor intentions?
> > >
> > > We are talking about the GPLv2 licence text, not about what you would
> > > personally prefer.
> >
> > The GPLv2 doesn't have to cover this distinction to make it a reality.
> > This distinction is *EXACTLY* the type of distinction a lawyer will make
> > when arguing the point.
> >...
>
> Reality check:
>
> Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys
> required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware.

In Germany, not America. I should have qualified my statement to make it clear 
I mean "In America". Sorry about the confusion.

DRH

>
> cu
> Adrian



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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/