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

[Michael Poole]

Ingo Molnar writes:

> * Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> > it is a false statement on your part that the executable "does not 
>> > function properly" if it lacks that part. Try it: take out the harddisk 
>> > from the Tivo (it's a bog standard IDE harddisk), put into a nice Linux 
>> > PC, mount it, modify a bit in the kernel image header and it will likely 
>> > still boot just fine on that PC.
>> 
>> Ok, try this: take the disk out, remove/replace/modify the signature, 
>> put the disk back in, and tell me what it is that fail to run.
>
> you mean back into the Tivo? That is not support for what you claimed. 
> You claimed the "executable does not function properly" if it lacks that 
> part (and you did not qualify your statement with anything). That was a 
> false statement, because it still works fine in just about any 
> bog-standard PC. A true statement would be: "the modified executable 
> does not function properly _in the Tivo_". It still works fine on a 
> general purpose PC.

I claimed that.  Unless I missed something, Alexandre did not.

Ability to run on a standard PC is irrelevant.  Tivo distributes the
executable for the specific purpose of running on their hardware.
Having the signature accepted by the hardware is a critical aspect of
the executable.  That purpose and function are what make the signature
part of the work based on Linux.

Courts consider purpose and intent when analyzing actions; except when
one has bought the best available legal system, they would not follow
your logic.  (The role the signature plays in controlling access to a
copyrighted work, per DMCA, might also separately identify it as part
of the work based on Linux.)

If I wished to distribute a kernel with extended functionality from a
C file but not the C source files, under your logic I need not give
them out -- a user could modify the binary and run it on a general
purpose PC.  Right?  At most it would take clever linker tricks to
make the change small enough.

As to the suggestion that vendors would use another kernel: I would
not mind.  A huge fraction of the interesting and useful work in open
source kernels happens in Linux (first or only).  Using any third
party software is a trade-off of what you get versus what you give up.

Michael Poole
-
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/