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

Linus Torvalds
2007-06-15T03:23:49Z

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> If the DRM signature and program executable are coupled such that they
> are not useful when separated, the implication to me is that they form
> one work that is based on the original Program. This is beyond the
> GPL's permission for "mere aggregation".

So you want to make things like a 160-bit SHA1 hash of a binary be a
"derived work" of that software?

Trust me, you *really* don't want to go there. It's an insane legal
standpoint, and if you were right, we'd be in a *world* of trouble.

Think about something as simple as security software that creates
filesystem checksums for verifying the integrity of the filesystem, and
protects against tampering.

Do you *really* want to claim that the SHA1 checksum of your "oracle"
binary is owned by Oracle, and you need to have a special license to copy
that checksum around and verify it?

Do you *really* want to claim that the RIAA owns the CDDB checksums (well,
I guess "feedb", these days) of the CD's that get uploaded for music
databases?

Do you realize that in your INSANE world, there is no notion of "fair
use", and you just tried to extend the notion of copyright so far that you
turned your utopia into a total distopia.

In other words, anybody who claims that copyright in a program extends to
the cryptographic hash of the binary, and at the same time makes a "free
software" kind of argument is so damn clueless that it's not even funny.
You're arguing for "freedom" by using logic that is the very *antithesis*
of freedom.

That's just incredibly stupid and incredibly short-sighted.

If that were to seriously be an FSF argument, then I would officially lump
the FSF as a *much*worse* danger to the free world than the RIAA and the
MPAA combined!

I seriously doubt you really thought your idea through! Because it goes
beyond stupid.

Linus