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

Florin Malita
2007-06-15T17:05:31Z

On 06/15/2007 12:18 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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?

Except in this case you're not touching the book at all. If you write a
review for a book (much better analogy methinks), then your review is
obviously not an integral part of the book even though it's based on its
content.

> 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.

Being an integral part (as in combined or derived work) has nothing to
do with usability. There are many other bits and pieces your executable
needs in order to function properly (or at all) but that doesn't make
your CPU microcode & electricity provider an integral part of the
program, does it?

Luckily, it doesn't really matter what you or I think that
"integral-ness" means, all it matters is how copyright law defines a
"derivative work" and whether a cryptographic hash is such a thing. Now
are you seriously arguing that a hash is a derivative work?

> On top of this, in the Tivo
> case the two are distributed together, and even part of the same file.
>

It's mere aggregation, but it's totally irrelevant because they could
just as easily change their approach.

---
fm