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:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:02:18 -0400
From:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david\@lang.hm" <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

Ingo Molnar writes:

> * Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> 
>> > it is a false statement on your part that the executable "does not 
>> > function properly" if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk 
>> > from the Tivo (it's a bog standard IDE harddisk), put into a nice Linux 
>> > PC, mount it, modify a bit in the kernel image header and it will likely 
>> > still boot just fine on that PC.
>> 
>> Ok, try this: take the disk out, remove/replace/modify the signature, 
>> put the disk back in, and tell me what it is that fail to run.
>
> you mean back into the Tivo? That is not support for what you claimed. 
> You claimed the "executable does not function properly" if it lacks that 
> part (and you did not qualify your statement with anything). That was a 
> false statement, because it still works fine in just about any 
> bog-standard PC. A true statement would be: "the modified executable 
> does not function properly _in the Tivo_". It still works fine on a 
> general purpose PC.

I claimed that.  Unless I missed something, Alexandre did not.

Ability to run on a standard PC is irrelevant.  Tivo distributes the
executable for the specific purpose of running on their hardware.
Having the signature accepted by the hardware is a critical aspect of
the executable.  That purpose and function are what make the signature
part of the work based on Linux.

Courts consider purpose and intent when analyzing actions; except when
one has bought the best available legal system, they would not follow
your logic.  (The role the signature plays in controlling access to a
copyrighted work, per DMCA, might also separately identify it as part
of the work based on Linux.)

If I wished to distribute a kernel with extended functionality from a
C file but not the C source files, under your logic I need not give
them out -- a user could modify the binary and run it on a general
purpose PC.  Right?  At most it would take clever linker tricks to
make the change small enough.

As to the suggestion that vendors would use another kernel: I would
not mind.  A huge fraction of the interesting and useful work in open
source kernels happens in Linux (first or only).  Using any third
party software is a trade-off of what you get versus what you give up.

Michael Poole
-
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/