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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87fy4tz8dc.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:53:51 -0400
From:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	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\@lang.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

Ingo Molnar writes:

> * Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org> wrote:
>
>> > However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot 
>> > generate a "new" work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so 
>> > the signature itself cannot have a copyright at all.
> [...]
>> 
>> I do not suggest that copyright subsists in the signature or in the 
>> signing key.  Whether it does is irrelevant to the signing key being 
>> part of the source code (when the signature is needed for the binary 
>> to work properly).
>
> it is very much relevant. By admitting that the key is not part of the 
> "work", you have lost all moral basis to claim control over it.

I have not admitted any such thing.  I have said the key and signature
do not have separate copyright protection.  Variables named "i" in a
file are not protected by copyright, but they are very much part of
the source code in that file.

>> Similarly, copyright might not subsist in a simple linker script -- 
>> its content being determined by the operating system and perhaps the 
>> rest of the program's source code -- but under the GPL, the linker 
>> script would be part of the source code for a compiled version.
>
> the linker script is still part of the whole work though - even if that 
> particular element might not be copyrightable in isolation. Likewise, 
> the kernel contains code that is in the public domain - to which 
> copyright protection does not extend either. But you cannot argue that 
> the Tivo 'key' is part of the whole work. It is part of the _hardware_. 
> The Tivo box is a compilation (at most a collection) of multiple works, 
> and allowing the GPL to jump over derivation/modification lines is 
> wrong. The GPLv2 certain doesnt do that land-grab.

Where in the Tivo hardware is the signing key?  There is a related key
in the hardware, but that one is not used to generate an integral part
of the kernel binary.

Michael Poole
-
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/