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 11:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>, 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 Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> Actually, I don't see where it explicitly states that it only covers
> derived work.

See "Section 0":

	The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a 
	"work based on the Program" means either the Program or any 
	derivative work under copyright law:

so yes, if you grepped for "derived work", you wouldn't have found it. The 
exact wording used in the license is "derivative work under copyright 
law".

So the very *definition* of the word "Program" is indeed limited by the 
notion of "derived work" - as defined by copyright law, and NOT the GPLv2.

> The case which interests me most is when someone makes an embedded
> device, for example a router -- and they  distribute a 'blob' of
> firmware for it, containing both the kernel a binary-only network driver
> module. Again we have to ask ourselves "is this a work based on the
> kernel?". Obviously there isn't a 'right' answer outside a court of law,
> but personally I reckon it's a fairly safe bet that it _is_ going to be
> considered to be a work based on Linux.

Hey, I kind of disagree.

What is a DVD? It's just a "blob" of a UDF image, potentially containing 
the Linux kernel.

How is that different from a "blob" of some other kind of image (say, a 
cramfs or similar image) on a rom?

What makes UDF so different from cramfs? What makes a DVD so different 
from a ROM chip? Why would copyright law care about one and not the other?

So I really do _not_ think it's at all obvious. Personally, I think it's 
exactly the same case. Others disagree, but I've never really seen a good 
*reason* for them disagreeing.

		Linus
-
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/