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: <4672C6BA.6020702@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:04:58 -0400
From:	Florin Malita <fmalita@...il.com>
To:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On 06/15/2007 12:18 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
> Florin Malita writes:
>
>   
>> On 06/15/2007 10:56 AM, Michael Poole wrote:
>>     
>>> The GPL cares about the key
>>> used to generate an integral part of the executable form of the GPLed
>>> work.  
>>>       
>> GLPv2 doesn't: why do you think the digital signature is an integral
>> part of the executable? It can be a totally separate blob, distributed
>> via a separate channel and even stored at a different location than
>> the executable. Does it still look like an integral part of the
>> executable to you then?
>>     
>
> Yes.  If I cut a book in half and store the halves separately, does
> the second half become an independent work?  

Except in this case you're not touching the book at all. If you write a 
review for a book (much better analogy methinks), then your review is 
obviously not an integral part of the book even though it's based on its 
content.

> The integral-ness is a
> function of how the thing is created and how it functions, not how it
> is stored.  If you need part B for part A to execute as intended, then
> part A is not a complete work in itself.

Being an integral part (as in combined or derived work) has nothing to 
do with usability. There are many other bits and pieces your executable 
needs in order to function properly (or at all) but that doesn't make 
your CPU microcode & electricity provider an integral part of the 
program, does it?

Luckily, it doesn't really matter what you or I think that 
"integral-ness" means, all it matters is how copyright law defines a 
"derivative work" and whether a cryptographic hash is such a thing. Now 
are you seriously arguing that a hash is a derivative work?

>   On top of this, in the Tivo
> case the two are distributed together, and even part of the same file.
>   

It's mere aggregation, but it's totally irrelevant because they could 
just as easily change their approach.

---
fm
-
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/