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:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:07:05 +0200
From:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Alan Milnes <alan@...oundation.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Friday 15 June 2007 04:19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I will state one more time: I think that what Tivo did was and is:
>
>  (a) perfectly legal wrt the GPLv2 (and I have shown multiple times why
>      your arguments don't hold logical water - if you actually followed
>      them yourself, you wouldn't be using a redhat.com email address!)

Linus, Harald Welte managed to get the keys from Siemens, which sold 
a "tivoized" Linux router. As typical for German courts, he got the key in 
a settlement, so there's no citable court verdict (totally, he AFAIK got 
two court verdicts up to now). But the way settlements work in Germany 
suggests that it's likely that the court would have decided that way*.

So there is no verdict on this question, but a strong hint that you are 
wrong, at least under German law (which is not the best money can buy ;-). 
And as Tivo doesn't sell their crap into Germany, we can't test it with 
them.

It's you who think the GPLv2 is tit-for-tat, not the FSF, and it's not in 
the text of the GPLv2; this is your private misinterpretation. The GPLv2 
is "transitive", i.e. everybody receives the same rights, nobody is 
entitled to take rights from others (the only person to choose is the 
author), and this certainly includes technical means (even if it does not 
explicitely say so), and the GPLv3 is just the same (it's just more 
readable). All arguments from your side put up are straw men like "hardware 
vs. software" and such.

BTW: Hardware as it is done today (chips, printed circuit boards, etc.) is 
copyrighted as well, as it is much cheaper to copy hardware than to develop 
it.

*) German judges want to resolve civil cases by settlements. They let the 
parties pass a few arguments, and indicate which way the judge possibly 
would decide to help them settle fast. Settlement is way cheaper than a 
court verdict, so most sane people choose to settle (unfortunately it's 
often the insane people who go to court ;-).

-- 
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