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

[Ingo Molnar]

* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a 
> storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But when you 
> distribute those same sections as part of a whole...' bit _ever_ 
> apply? It _explicitly_ talks of sections which are independent and 
> separate works in their own right, but which must be licensed under 
> the GPL when they're distributed as part of a larger whole.
>
> I don't see how we could hold the view that _even_ linking is 'mere 
> aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium', without 
> conveniently either ignoring entire paragraphs of the GPL or declaring 
> them to be entirely meaningless.

as long as it's not distributed in one collective work, where is the 
problem? A driver could be argued to be part of a mere compilation of 
works (not part of a collective work), or just two separate works. But 
... this is a much greyer area than the key stuff.

> Of course, that doesn't mean that a court _wouldn't_ do that. Given 
> enough money, I'm sure you could get US court to declare that the 
> world is flat. But it doesn't seem to be a reasonable viewpoint, to 
> me. Or a likely outcome.

i'm not that cynical about US courts.

	Ingo
-
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/