Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758724AbXFTTpZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:45:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754675AbXFTTpQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:45:16 -0400 Received: from dsl081-033-126.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.33.126]:49306 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754491AbXFTTpP (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:45:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:45:24 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Michael Poole cc: Tomas Neme , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 In-Reply-To: <87odjas9f7.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> Message-ID: References: <9a8748490706201034j43139301w5a18c172d688c724@mail.gmail.com> <2e6659dd0706201110x20fa5c28n5d6fc094e9f5c832@mail.gmail.com> <871wg6trnx.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <2e6659dd0706201205i52e0b836oe642e2b442e425d7@mail.gmail.com> <87wsxysaad.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> <87odjas9f7.fsf@graviton.dyn.troilus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1485 Lines: 35 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote: > david@lang.hm writes: > >> no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in >> this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source >> code. > > Why not? The digital signature is a statement (which translates > roughly to "Tivo approves this") to be used in a computer in order to > bring about a certain result. That result is making it boot on the > PVR. Source code simply means the original forms or inputs used to > generate machine-readable statements. but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks the signature is completely independant. and finally the PVR functions are not part of the kernel (and not under the GPL in any case) if your argument was true then Oracle releasing a database appliance would require Oracle to give you the source to their database since it's part of 'bringing about a certain result' namely operating as a database server. if your argument was true then releasing a GPL package for windows would require that the windows kernel source be released, after it it's nessasary for 'brining about a certain result' namely letting your code run. these are both nonsense results. David Lang - 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/