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

David Woodhouse
2007-06-15T08:25:58Z

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:44 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE*
> distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it both
> ways. If the module is distributed *with* the kernel *SOURCE* then it doesn't
> matter if it's a derivative work or not, because it becomes covered by the
> kernels license.

Yes.

> If it's distributed with the kernel *binaries* then it is
> covered by its own license. In that case the only reason you'd have a right
> to the source is if the module is considered a "derivative work".

Not necessarily. I'm not entirely sure where you got that idea from.

If the module is distributed 'as a separate work', _then_ what you say
is true: the only reason you'd have a right to the source is if the
module is considered a 'derivative work'.

But when you distribute the same module as part of a whole which is a
work based on the kernel, the distribution of the whole must be on the
terms of GPL, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

The words you used were 'with the kernel', which could actually mean
either of the above. In the case of embedded Linux-based firmware
though, it's definitely the latter. It's a coherent whole, and it
contains both the kernel and the module. Thus the GPL extends to each
and every part, regardless of who wrote it. Including the module.

--
dwmw2