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: <200706142144.15695.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:44:15 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	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>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:55 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they
> > make the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm not
> > going to get into arguments over whether kernel modules are "derivative
> > works" or not, since those invariably end up with "They aren't, even
> > though we think they should be")
>
> Who cares about whether the module is a derivative work? That's only
> relevant when you distribute the module as a separate work. When you
> ship a combined work including both the kernel and the module in
> question, it's a _whole_ lot easier to interpret the GPL.

Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE* 
distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it both 
ways. If the module is distributed *with* the kernel *SOURCE* then it doesn't 
matter if it's a derivative work or not, because it becomes covered by the 
kernels license. If it's distributed with the kernel *binaries* then it is 
covered by its own license. In that case the only reason you'd have a right 
to the source is if the module is considered a "derivative work".

DRH

-- 
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/