Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754046AbXFNUP1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:15:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751121AbXFNUPR (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:15:17 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.228]:55153 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750944AbXFNUPP (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:15:15 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qKTI7IzBbsbLyaezs+KFtg//DhaKuFuIMawNZz9dLJjMaVuNooU6dfdHO3g4A0UuRmLEbgQbSwKlSfB3ZjlqFjfEhOqLNji6vHJfpgd0EPEPoB31oJMMl2pDzkBaMHACGhIf13qvti3GCH/yQIKpJ33oy1v6yZ3FbnEv9SwguAg= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:15:14 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Alexandre Oliva" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Daniel Hazelton" , "Bongani Hlope" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Lennart Sorensen" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , "david@lang.hm" , "Tarkan Erimer" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200706132108.50030.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706140125.24815.dtor@insightbb.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1823 Lines: 46 On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" wrote: > > > Ok, consider non-derived work. > > I did, you snipped it out: > > >> If your change is not a derived work, you're not bound by the terms > >> of the GPL as far as the change is concerned, so the GPL has no say > >> whatsoever as to how you must release it. If you choose the GPL, > >> then you're a licensor, and the requirements to pass on all the > >> rights you have do not apply. > Yes, I did, thank you for putting the text back in. > > Because I am distributing whole program > > I have to do it under GPL. Please notice this sentence. GPL still influences the way I release stuff (if I want to release the work as whole) but it does not mean passing all rigths I could possibly have. > > However I still have the right to > > distribute just the portion that is written by me under whatevel > > license I want but you as a recepient of GPLed whole do not get this > > right. IOW I am not passing all the rights _I have_. > > I see what you mean. IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works. > > When your work is not a derived work, the GPL that applies to the rest > of the program does not make you a licensee, and it only covers your > work if you choose to license it that way. And then, you're the sole > licensor of that piece of the work. So, with regard to TIVO, why are you saying that GPL shoudl affect their hardware (I assume that key check/enforce is done in firmware taht is separate from kernel image)? -- Dmitry - 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/