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

Michael Poole
2007-06-15T16:19:16Z

Florin Malita writes:

> 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?

Yes. If I cut a book in half and store the halves separately, does
the second half become an independent work? The integral-ness is a
function of how the thing is created and how it functions, not how it
is stored. If you need part B for part A to execute as intended, then
part A is not a complete work in itself. On top of this, in the Tivo
case the two are distributed together, and even part of the same file.

[snip]
> 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.

The GPL does not require a distributor to provide me with any kind of
environment. If I get a Tivo kernel image but do not have a Tivo, the
GPL does not require anyone to give me hardware. Fortunately, that is
not at all my argument.

Michael Poole