[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <orabv26kcu.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:07:45 -0300
From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc: Robin Getz <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>,
"Daniel Hazelton" <dhazelton@...er.net>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "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 Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking
>> dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the
>> signing key away. This should be good for the highly-regulated areas
>> you're talking about. And then, since you can no longer modify the
>> program, you don't have to let the user do that any more. Problem
>> solved.
> A) Does that actually satisfy the terms of GPLv3?
I think so:
this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party
retains the ability to install modified object code on the User
Product
> If so, can't they just wait until they get sued and destroy the keys
> then?
I don't think this woulnd't satisfy the above.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists