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

Michael Poole
2007-06-20T20:08:12Z

david@lang.hm writes:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> Please retract that claim. I have said no such thing, and have
>> avoided saying anything that I thought might be misconstrued in that
>> direction.
>>
>> To be absolutely clear: My complaints with Tivo as a hardware or BIOS
>> vendor are moral and pragmatic, not legal. My complaint with Tivo as
>> a distributor of Linux is what hinges on legal issues.
>
> but if the GPL doesn't control the BIOS how in the world are you
> saying that the fact that the GPL covers the kernel makes what the
> BIOS does wrong (even if the kernel was covered by GPLv3)?

I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The
wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
complete source code for it.

>>> that's a seperate body of code that is in no way derived from the
>>> linux kernel (even the anti-tampering functions would work equally
>>> well with other Operating systems and are in no way linux
>>> specific). it's no even loaded on the same media (the BIOS is in
>>> flash/rom on the botherboard, the OS is on the hard drive)
>>>
>>> and note that the software that is checked to make sure that it hasn't
>>> been changed includes much more then the kernel. it checks the kernel
>>> and the initrd.
>>
>> Not legally relevant.
>
> I disagree. it's very relevant if your argument is that becouse the
> checksum if a checksum of the kernel that the license for the kernel
> somehow controlls what can be done with it.

To the extent that it is relevant, it strengthens the argument against
Tivo: they are tying together many works of authorship, including some
GPLed works, in a way that makes them effectively inseparable. This
is beyond "mere aggregation" on a distribution medium, and tends to
implicate *all* parts of the whole as GPL encumbered.

Michael Poole