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

david
2007-06-15T04:07:44Z

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>
> On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> OK. Let's take this to the simple and logical conclusion. A signed
>> filesystem image containing both GPL and non-GPL code. From your
>> point A, this is a derived work.
>
> I claim the signature is derived from the GPLed bits, yes. Whether
> that's a derived work, in the legal sense, I'm not qualified to say.

it's also derived from the non-GPLed bits as well.

so if it were a derived work in a legal sense (nessasary for your
argument to have any legal meaning) then it's now illegal to make and
distribute a checksum of a CD that contains software with incompatible
licenses.

> And I claim that, in the case of TiVO, it is not only a functional
> piece of the system that's derived from GPLed code and missing the
> corresponding sources, but also it's being used to impose restrictions
> on the exercise of the freedoms that the GPL is designed to protect.
> And these conditions are what make it a bad thing, and that deviate,
> if not from the legal conditions, at least from the spirit of the
> license.

you keep claiming this, but other people claim you are wrong. what good do
your claims do (why are your claims about what's in the spirit of the
license and what's not any more valid than anyone else's?)

David Lang