Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking
>> dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the
>> signing key away.  This should be good for the highly-regulated areas
>> you're talking about.  And then, since you can no longer modify the
>> program, you don't have to let the user do that any more.  Problem
>> solved.

> A) Does that actually satisfy the terms of GPLv3?

I think so:

  this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party
  retains the ability to install modified object code on the User
  Product

> If so, can't they just wait until they get sued and destroy the keys
> then?

I don't think this woulnd't satisfy the above.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/