Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754884AbXFNC4j (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:56:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754601AbXFNC43 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:56:29 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:34527 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754578AbXFNC42 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:56:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Alexandre Oliva , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Message-ID: <20070614025640.GQ3588@stusta.de> References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706132140.13490.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614020827.GO3588@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazelton@enter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706132243.14651.dhazelton@enter.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2273 Lines: 55 On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:43:14PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > > > Either private keys required to run the kernel on the hardware are > > > > always considered part of "the complete source code" or they are never > > > > part of it. > > > > > > No. It all depends on the use-case. If the hardware is designed for the > > > user to install their own, custom versions of the code on then the > > > signing keys are part of the source as defined by the GPLv2. > > > > > > If, OTOH, the hardware was never meant for the end-user to install custom > > > versions of the software on, then while the signing keys are still > > > *technically* part of the source, in practice they are not. Why? Because > > > in most of those cases the end-user isn't granted the right to install > > > and run custom binaries on the hardware. If the manufacturer provided the > > > signing keys they'd be facilitating the commission of a crime. (call it > > > "Breach of Contract") > > >... > > > > Repetition doesn't let wrong things become true. > > > > Where does the GPLv2 talk about the distinction you are trying to make > > based on distributor intentions? > > > > We are talking about the GPLv2 licence text, not about what you would > > personally prefer. > > The GPLv2 doesn't have to cover this distinction to make it a reality. This > distinction is *EXACTLY* the type of distinction a lawyer will make when > arguing the point. >... Reality check: Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/