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 21:28:32 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 22:20 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> That boundary is indeed fuzzy, because life is fuzzy too and the 
> possibilities are virtually unlimited. But one thing is pretty sure: as 
> long as some component is merely put alongside of a larger body of work, 
> even if that component has no life of its own without _some_ larger body 
> of work, that component is not necessarily part of a collective work and 
> does not necessarily fall under the GPL.

Not _necessarily_ a collective work. But not necessarily _not_ a
collective work either.

> For driver blobs that are shared between Windows and Linux it would be 
> hard to argue that they are derived from the Linux kernel. 

You're back to the 'derived work' thing again, which wasn't relevant.

> Merely linking to some larger body of work does not necessarily mean
> that the two become a collective work. No matter how much the FSF is
> trying to muddy the waters with the LGPL/GPL.

I think it's quite clear that the intent of the GPL _is_ to 'muddy the
waters', as you put it, and to indicate that bundling stuff together
_should_ put the non-derived parts under the GPL too; at least in some
circumstances. But still, nothing's true until it's ruled by a court.

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/