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

Florin Malita
2007-06-15T15:53:49Z

On 06/15/2007 10:56 AM, Michael Poole wrote:
> The GPL cares about the key
> used to generate an integral part of the executable form of the GPLed
> work.

GLPv2 doesn't: why do you think the digital signature is an integral
part of the executable? It can be a totally separate blob, distributed
via a separate channel and even stored at a different location than the
executable. Does it still look like an integral part of the executable
to you then?

(unless of course you're trying to argue that the hash itself is a
derivative work, but that has already been refuted many times before.)

> The executable does not function properly if it lacks that
> part.

It works just fine given the right environment. The right environment
may be some other hardware (without DRM restrictions) or the DRMed
device + an authorized digital signature. The digital signature is not
part of your executable.

Do you honestly believe GPLv2 requires the distributor to provide you
with the right environment for your modified copy to "function
properly"? I would say it doesn't, but feel free to point me to specific
sections which *state* otherwise. AFAICT, GPLv2 is specifically limited
to "copying, distribution and modification". How you use (or don't use,
or can't use) your modified copy is totally outside its scope.

---
fm