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

[david]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:

> david@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> > no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
> > this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
> > code.
>
> Why not?  The digital signature is a statement (which translates
> roughly to "Tivo approves this") to be used in a computer in order to
> bring about a certain result.  That result is making it boot on the
> PVR.  Source code simply means the original forms or inputs used to
> generate machine-readable statements.

but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks the 
signature is completely independant. and finally the PVR functions are not 
part of the kernel (and not under the GPL in any case)

if your argument was true then Oracle releasing a database appliance would 
require Oracle to give you the source to their database since it's part of 
'bringing about a certain result' namely operating as a database server.

if your argument was true then releasing a GPL package for windows would 
require that the windows kernel source be released, after it it's 
nessasary for 'brining about a certain result' namely letting your code 
run.

these are both nonsense results.

David Lang
-
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/