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

Bron Gondwana
2007-06-17T08:35:36Z

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:58:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> >
> > No, I'm arguing that it's not "mere aggregation" - the kernel is useless
> > on that machine unless the BIOS is present or replaced with something
> > else with equivalent functionality.
>
> That's *not* a valid argument!
>
> I know, I know, it's a common one, but it is *nonsense*.

Further to my other response on this (yeah, I know, I should think
first).

Where the BIOS author and 'work aggregator' are different organisation
with no shady backroom links (other than the usual industry cabal(TINC)
of course) then it's clear.

When they are the same organisation then the derivedness state is a lot
less clear and more "discoverable", leading to a higher risk of ambush
by litigation.

This isn't specific to any particular licence, but it's something that
the "intent" theory of hardware limitations being a GPL3 violation makes
extra dangerous, because that clause can be used as a hook to drag a
claim through summary judgement (IMHO, IANAL, etc)

Bron ( mostly arguing the same things that you are Linus, I think, but
I didn't clarify that I was writing from a devil's advocate
position in an alternative reality where Tivo was illegal
purely due to "intent" )