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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15T08:58:53Z

On Friday 15 June 2007 04:25:24 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:44 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE*
> > distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it
> > both ways. If the module is distributed *with* the kernel *SOURCE* then
> > it doesn't matter if it's a derivative work or not, because it becomes
> > covered by the kernels license.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If it's distributed with the kernel *binaries* then it is
> > covered by its own license. In that case the only reason you'd have a
> > right to the source is if the module is considered a "derivative work".
>
> Not necessarily. I'm not entirely sure where you got that idea from.
>
> If the module is distributed 'as a separate work', _then_ what you say
> is true: the only reason you'd have a right to the source is if the
> module is considered a 'derivative work'.
>
> But when you distribute the same module as part of a whole which is a
> work based on the kernel, the distribution of the whole must be on the
> terms of GPL, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
> whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

-ELOGIC

> The words you used were 'with the kernel', which could actually mean
> either of the above. In the case of embedded Linux-based firmware
> though, it's definitely the latter. It's a coherent whole, and it
> contains both the kernel and the module. Thus the GPL extends to each
> and every part, regardless of who wrote it. Including the module.

Just because two things are bundled together doesn't put them under the same
license or copyright. Take a look at the GPL, which specifically mentions
that "mere aggregation" does not cause something to fall under the GPL. Not
that the GPL can even change the law - in the US copyright law specifically
states that "mechanical translation" and "mechanical processes" *CANNOT*
create a "new" work. Since the process of compiling source into a binary is,
by definition, a *mechanical* process then the binary can't suddenly become
covered by a different copyright license than the source code merely because
of the medium on which its distributed or the manner in which it is
distributed.

DRH

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.