Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754389AbXFOOa3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:30:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751809AbXFOOaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:30:22 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:45319 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751079AbXFOOaV (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:30:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:30:03 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Michael Poole 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 Message-ID: <20070615143003.GA8775@elte.hu> 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> <87fy4tz8dc.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fy4tz8dc.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1594 Lines: 33 * Michael Poole wrote: > >> 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. the problem with your argument is that the definition of what constitutes "work" is up to copyright law, _not_ the license writer. I.e. you cannot just cleverly define "source code" to include something unrelated and then pretend that it's all in one work. And that's exactly what the GPLv3 does: it creatively defines the hardware's key into the 'source code' of the software and then asks for that to be provided _not_ because somehow the key derives from the software (it clearly does not), but as a "compensation" for the right to redistribute! I.e. it's trying to extend its scope to some item that is not part of the software. See? Ingo - 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/