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: <1181940425.5211.81.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:47:03 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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, 2007-06-15 at 13:34 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I think that's a somewhat valid argument, although I'm not really sure 
> whether there is any difference between, say, a Fedora 7 "livecd", and a 
> router with a cramfs filesystem in rom.
> 
> Both really work the same way, and both really are very much targeted 
> towards a specific hardware platform.

I'm inclined to agree. And I'd probably suggest that the Fedora 7
'livecd' would be in violation of the GPL if it were to include the
binary-only modules, too. Enough people agree with me that we _don't_ in
fact include those modules. And other people have been convinced to
_stop_ shipping those modules, when once they did.

> So I would at least *personally* suggest that people not look into the 
> license for these kinds of things, and also that you really need to have a 
> very specific case, and just basically put it in front of a judge.

> At some point, *somebody* has to decide in a gray area, and I'm not saying 
> that a judge is really _technically_ any better really to decide the 
> issue, but at least he is hopefully _independent_ of both parties, so when 
> a judge makes an arbitrary decision, the "arbitrariness" is hopefully at 
> least somewhat "fair".

Indeed.

-- 
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/