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: <87abuuqabt.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:02:14 -0400
From:	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

David Schwartz writes:

>> There is a lot of grey and/or arguable area about what constitutes a
>> GPL-encumbered collective work versus mere aggregation.
>
> I think it's technically/legally clear what the standards are, but certainly
> arguable whether particular works meet that standard. If the choice of works
> to combine is sufficiently creative (above and beyond any choices dictated
> by functional considerations), it's a GPL-encumbered collective work.
>
> I don't think it's arguable that a signature shipped along with a binary is
> a collective work. In any event, if that were true, I think we should be
> able to agree that Linus would be required to release his kernel signing
> keys.

The distinction between GPL-covered works and "mere aggregation" is
not a function only of legal classifications.  If it were, the GPL
would be worded differently than it is -- and have different effects
than most people believe it does.

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/