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: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKIECOEMAC.davids@webmaster.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:49:54 -0700
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

> I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong.  The
> wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
> complete source code for it.

Why are you not complaining that Linus does not distribute the keys he uses
to sign kernel source distributions? If a digital signature is part of the
distribution, why is the key used to produce that signature not part of the
distribution?

If you can cite some legal reason there is a difference, I would be quite
impressed.

In any event, the argument is obvious nonsense. The signature is merely
aggregated with the kernel. Cooperation, dependent function, and convergent
design can't break mere aggregation or you get ridiculous results. (For
example, a device shipped with the Linux kernel and some applications would
have to GPL all the applications.)

DS

-
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/