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

Michael Poole
2007-06-15T12:54:00Z

Ingo Molnar writes:

> * Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
>
>> > However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot
>> > generate a "new" work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so
>> > the signature itself cannot have a copyright at all.
> [...]
>>
>> I do not suggest that copyright subsists in the signature or in the
>> signing key. Whether it does is irrelevant to the signing key being
>> part of the source code (when the signature is needed for the binary
>> to work properly).
>
> it is very much relevant. By admitting that the key is not part of the
> "work", you have lost all moral basis to claim control over it.

I have not admitted any such thing. I have said the key and signature
do not have separate copyright protection. Variables named "i" in a
file are not protected by copyright, but they are very much part of
the source code in that file.

>> Similarly, copyright might not subsist in a simple linker script --
>> its content being determined by the operating system and perhaps the
>> rest of the program's source code -- but under the GPL, the linker
>> script would be part of the source code for a compiled version.
>
> the linker script is still part of the whole work though - even if that
> particular element might not be copyrightable in isolation. Likewise,
> the kernel contains code that is in the public domain - to which
> copyright protection does not extend either. But you cannot argue that
> the Tivo 'key' is part of the whole work. It is part of the _hardware_.
> The Tivo box is a compilation (at most a collection) of multiple works,
> and allowing the GPL to jump over derivation/modification lines is
> wrong. The GPLv2 certain doesnt do that land-grab.

Where in the Tivo hardware is the signing key? There is a related key
in the hardware, but that one is not used to generate an integral part
of the kernel binary.

Michael Poole