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

david
2007-06-20T20:02:17Z

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:

> david@lang.hm writes:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>>> david@lang.hm writes:
>>>
>>>> no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
>>>> this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
>>>> code.
>>>
>>> Why not? The digital signature is a statement (which translates
>>> roughly to "Tivo approves this") to be used in a computer in order to
>>> bring about a certain result. That result is making it boot on the
>>> PVR. Source code simply means the original forms or inputs used to
>>> generate machine-readable statements.
>>
>> but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
>> the signature is completely independant. and finally the PVR functions
>> are not part of the kernel (and not under the GPL in any case)
>>
>> if your argument was true then Oracle releasing a database appliance
>> would require Oracle to give you the source to their database since
>> it's part of 'bringing about a certain result' namely operating as a
>> database server.
>
> From the kernel's COPYING file:
>
> NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
> of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
>
> See also the portion below.

the PVR software does exactly this, so the functionality as a PVR has
nothing to do with the kernel by your own arguments.

>> if your argument was true then releasing a GPL package for windows
>> would require that the windows kernel source be released, after it
>> it's nessasary for 'brining about a certain result' namely letting
>> your code run.
>
> From section 3 of the GPL:
>
> However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
> not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source
> or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
> on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
> that component itself accompanies the executable.

but then how can the kernel impose any restriction on the BIOS? (and
remember, you are the one arguing that it somehow does)

David Lang

>> these are both nonsense results.
>
> .. which is why they are recognized to be different.
>
> Michael Poole
>