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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-14T19:49:38Z

On Thursday 14 June 2007 11:20:34 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> > > Reality check:
> > >
> > > Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys
> > > required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware.
> >
> > No, the *real* reality check:
> >
> > The operative words here are "convinced companies" - as opposed to
> > "convinced a judge to rule that private keys are required to be
> > disclosed". (I just checked around on gpl-violations.org, and I don't see
> > any news items that say they actually generated citable case law on the
> > topic of keys...)
> >
> > Harald convinced companies that it was easier/cheaper/faster to provide
> > the private keys than to continue in a long legal battle with an
> > uncertain outcome. If the company estimates the total loss due to keys
> > being released is US$100K, but the costs of taking it to court are
> > estimated at US$200K, it's obviously a win (lesser loss, actually) for
> > the company to just fold.
> >...
>
> Here in Germany, the rules at court are roughly "the loser pays
> everything including the costs of the winner", so if a big company is
> sure they will win at court there's no reason not to go there.
>
> And if they did the effort of using private keys to only allow running
> an official firmware, they must have seen an advantage from doing so.
>
> I'm not saying it legally clear the other way round, my statement was
> an answer to Daniel's emails claiming it was clear what such companies
> do was legal.

I'm sorry if I gave anyone that impression. My point was that it would be
pointless to argue the case in the US because here it really is,
usually , "buy the best justice for the money".

DRH

> cu
> Adrian

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