Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756550AbXFOMyA (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:54:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753146AbXFOMxx (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:53:53 -0400 Received: from 24-75-174-210-st.chvlva.adelphia.net ([24.75.174.210]:48818 "EHLO sanosuke.troilus.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754492AbXFOMxw (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:53:52 -0400 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Alexandre Oliva , Linus Torvalds , Lennart Sorensen , Greg KH , debian developer , "david\@lang.hm" , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <200706142246.57583.dhazelton@enter.net> <878xal2a0q.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <200706150127.18069.dhazelton@enter.net> <87sl8tzaj1.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <20070615124039.GB21120@elte.hu> From: Michael Poole Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:53:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070615124039.GB21120@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 14\:40\:39 +0200") Message-ID: <87fy4tz8dc.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) 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: 2175 Lines: 46 Ingo Molnar writes: > * Michael Poole wrote: > >> > However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot >> > generate a "new" work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so >> > the signature itself cannot have a copyright at all. > [...] >> >> I do not suggest that copyright subsists in the signature or in the >> signing key. Whether it does is irrelevant to the signing key being >> part of the source code (when the signature is needed for the binary >> to work properly). > > it is very much relevant. By admitting that the key is not part of the > "work", you have lost all moral basis to claim control over it. I have not admitted any such thing. I have said the key and signature do not have separate copyright protection. Variables named "i" in a file are not protected by copyright, but they are very much part of the source code in that file. >> Similarly, copyright might not subsist in a simple linker script -- >> its content being determined by the operating system and perhaps the >> rest of the program's source code -- but under the GPL, the linker >> script would be part of the source code for a compiled version. > > the linker script is still part of the whole work though - even if that > particular element might not be copyrightable in isolation. Likewise, > the kernel contains code that is in the public domain - to which > copyright protection does not extend either. But you cannot argue that > the Tivo 'key' is part of the whole work. It is part of the _hardware_. > The Tivo box is a compilation (at most a collection) of multiple works, > and allowing the GPL to jump over derivation/modification lines is > wrong. The GPLv2 certain doesnt do that land-grab. Where in the Tivo hardware is the signing key? There is a related key in the hardware, but that one is not used to generate an integral part of the kernel binary. Michael Poole - 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/