Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758280AbXFODXt (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:23:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751564AbXFODXk (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:23:40 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:44092 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751529AbXFODXj (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:23:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:22:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Michael Poole cc: Daniel Hazelton , Alexandre Oliva , Lennart Sorensen , 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 In-Reply-To: <878xal2a0q.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> Message-ID: References: <200706142049.41819.dhazelton@enter.net> <87fy4u0xty.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <200706142246.57583.dhazelton@enter.net> <878xal2a0q.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2130 Lines: 52 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote: > > If the DRM signature and program executable are coupled such that they > are not useful when separated, the implication to me is that they form > one work that is based on the original Program. This is beyond the > GPL's permission for "mere aggregation". So you want to make things like a 160-bit SHA1 hash of a binary be a "derived work" of that software? Trust me, you *really* don't want to go there. It's an insane legal standpoint, and if you were right, we'd be in a *world* of trouble. Think about something as simple as security software that creates filesystem checksums for verifying the integrity of the filesystem, and protects against tampering. Do you *really* want to claim that the SHA1 checksum of your "oracle" binary is owned by Oracle, and you need to have a special license to copy that checksum around and verify it? Do you *really* want to claim that the RIAA owns the CDDB checksums (well, I guess "feedb", these days) of the CD's that get uploaded for music databases? Do you realize that in your INSANE world, there is no notion of "fair use", and you just tried to extend the notion of copyright so far that you turned your utopia into a total distopia. In other words, anybody who claims that copyright in a program extends to the cryptographic hash of the binary, and at the same time makes a "free software" kind of argument is so damn clueless that it's not even funny. You're arguing for "freedom" by using logic that is the very *antithesis* of freedom. That's just incredibly stupid and incredibly short-sighted. If that were to seriously be an FSF argument, then I would officially lump the FSF as a *much*worse* danger to the free world than the RIAA and the MPAA combined! I seriously doubt you really thought your idea through! Because it goes beyond stupid. Linus - 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/