Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758075AbXFOClx (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:41:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752274AbXFOClq (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:41:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:53416 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752108AbXFOClp (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:41:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:39:44 -0400 From: Bill Nottingham To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Florin Malita , Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , 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: <20070615023944.GC3760@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva , Florin Malita , Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu References: <200706140305.50095.dhazelton@enter.net> <46717C58.8050501@gmail.com> <4671A528.5040300@gmail.com> <20070614234507.GA3860@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2048 Lines: 53 Alexandre Oliva (aoliva@redhat.com) said: > > Wait, a signed filesystem image that happens to contain GPL code > > is now a derived work? Under what sort of interpretation does *that* > > occur? > > Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed component, as > much as it is derived from the key? > > Isn't the signature is a functional portion of the image, i.e., if I > take it out from the system, it won't work any more? > > > (This pretty much throws the 'aggregation' premise in GPLv2 completely > > out.) > > Not really. It could take some explicit distinguishing between > functional and non-functional signatures, but that's about it. OK. Let's take this to the simple and logical conclusion. A signed filesystem image containing both GPL and non-GPL code. From your point A, this is a derived work. Let's read the license... 2. b) You must cause any work that ... is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. ... But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. and yet later: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Pick one. They can't both be valid. Moreover, this interpretation means that Red Hat (and pretty much any other Linux distributor) should close up shop, as that's what we've been doing for years. Bill - 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/