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:	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:12:08 -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

> On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva:
>
> >> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
> >> > mean: not directly; i.e.  they could give you a third-party
> >> > download link.
>
> >> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
>
> > A lot of people seem to say this, but I don't think it's true.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnchangedJustBinary

This consists of entirely unsupported statements.

> and
> the 3 questions after that should be enlightening as to why people say
> this ;-)
>
>     cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
>             ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Why would 'physically' be there if it didn't mean anything?

It does. It means you can't charge for adminsitrative or other costs
associated with performing the source distribution. It's necessary because
otherwise someone could claim that it costs them $10,000 to give you the
source code because they need to purchase a license from someone else. This
limits what you can charge for but does not specify what you have to do.

> When
> interpreting legal texts, that's one sort of question you should ask
> yourself.

It's obvious why it's there. If you're going to charge for the distribution,
the charge must be nominal and justified by actual distribution cost.

Note that even a distribution over the Internet must be physically performed
in this sense (actual physical activity by a human being is required to
perform this type of distribution, both in setup and in maintenance). I
would argue that the GPL allows you to charge these costs if you really
wanted to, though it's hard to imagine why anyone would bother.

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/