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 14:58:37 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3


* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:

> If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a 
> storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But when you 
> distribute those same sections as part of a whole...' bit _ever_ 
> apply? It _explicitly_ talks of sections which are independent and 
> separate works in their own right, but which must be licensed under 
> the GPL when they're distributed as part of a larger whole.
>
> I don't see how we could hold the view that _even_ linking is 'mere 
> aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium', without 
> conveniently either ignoring entire paragraphs of the GPL or declaring 
> them to be entirely meaningless.

as long as it's not distributed in one collective work, where is the 
problem? A driver could be argued to be part of a mere compilation of 
works (not part of a collective work), or just two separate works. But 
... this is a much greyer area than the key stuff.

> Of course, that doesn't mean that a court _wouldn't_ do that. Given 
> enough money, I'm sure you could get US court to declare that the 
> world is flat. But it doesn't seem to be a reasonable viewpoint, to 
> me. Or a likely outcome.

i'm not that cynical about US courts.

	Ingo
-
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/