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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87k5tys8w5.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:50:18 -0400
From:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Tomas Neme <lacrymology@...il.com>,
	"Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

david@...g.hm writes:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> david@...g.hm writes:
>>
>>> this is very much NOT true. if you take the source the provide you can
>>> compile a kernel that will run on the tivo, the only thing you have to
>>> do (on some models) is to change the bios to skip the step that checks
>>> if the kernel has been tampered with.
>>
>> If we are opining whether Tivo provided complete source code for their
>> Linux kernel images, the requirement to change non-GPLed software as a
>> condition to exercise GPL-protected rights speaks for itself.
>
> no, the GPL protected rights don't say anything about the hardware the
> system runs on.
>
> you are saying that the GPL now controls what the BIOS software is
> allowed to do or not allowed to do.

Please retract that claim.  I have said no such thing, and have
avoided saying anything that I thought might be misconstrued in that
direction.

To be absolutely clear: My complaints with Tivo as a hardware or BIOS
vendor are moral and pragmatic, not legal.  My complaint with Tivo as
a distributor of Linux is what hinges on legal issues.

> that's a seperate body of code that is in no way derived from the
> linux kernel (even the anti-tampering functions would work equally
> well with other Operating systems and are in no way linux
> specific). it's no even loaded on the same media (the BIOS is in
> flash/rom on the botherboard, the OS is on the hard drive)
>
> and note that the software that is checked to make sure that it hasn't
> been changed includes much more then the kernel. it checks the kernel
> and the initrd.

Not legally relevant.

>> Out of curiosity, what do you have to do on models besides those?  Are
>> newer models more or less restrictive in what they run?  If newer
>> models are more restrictive, I think that also speaks to whether Tivo
>> thinks it is conveying complete source code.
>
> newer models do tend to be more restrictive, but they also tend to
> connect to more propriatary networks (satellite or cable)

What they connect to is also not relevant.  That imples that because a
vendor has been issued or licensed patents, they are not obliged to
follow the GPL -- that the vendor has other obligations that supercede
the GPL's license claims.  GPL section 7 addresses that situation.

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/