In-Reply-To: <467ACF47.7080906@seclark.us>
References: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCEHKEMAC.davids@webmaster.com> <467ACF47.7080906@seclark.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <8F6396B7-3EFB-40A6-9F02-25B172993408@mac.com>
Cc: davids@webmaster.com, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:54:00 -0400
To: Stephen.Clark@seclark.us
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3009
Lines: 63

On Jun 21, 2007, at 15:19:35, Stephen Clark wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700 "David Schwartz"  
>>> <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>>>> A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither  
>>>> statements nor instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits  
>>>> Tivoization is really and truly absurd. It has neither a legal  
>>>> nor a moral leg to stand on.
>>>
>>> A computer program is a number too.
>>
>> No, it's not. It can be expressed as a number, but it is not a  
>> number.
>>
> ??? can be expressed as a number, but it is not a number ??? sure  
> its a number.
>
>> Keys are purely numbers, they are nothing else. Signatures are  
>> pure primitive facts encoded as numbers (authority X blessed  
>> object Y).
>>
>> A computer program is a set of instructions to accomplish a  
>> particular result. It can be expressed as a number, but that  
>> doesn't mean it is a number.
>>
>> It might be true in principle to develop a scheme whereby every  
>> physical object uniquely corresponds to an extremely large number.  
>> That doesn't turn physical objects into numbers.

Both of you lose this argument.  All irrational numbers, for example,  
"break" every copyright that could possibly exist.  For example, you  
can find any arbitrary sequence of Base-N digits when you express PI  
in base-N form.  I can simultaneously express both the laws of  
physics (not copyrightable) and the latest episode of the TV show  
"Numbers" (thoroughly copyrighted) as numbers.  In fact, we do both  
all the time (you can express both the latest equations for  
theoretical physics and a TV show as bits (IE: numbers) on an HDD.   
Ergo "$FOO is a number" says *NOTHING* about whether or not copyright  
applies to $FOO.  In case you haven't noticed, the whole damn point  
of math is that you can express *EVERYTHING* as numbers, albeit maybe  
horribly unbelievably complex ones.

Now, back to actual legal issues: Since most copyright laws  
explicitly prevent copyrighting of pure math, the only actual  
protection you have for some collection of so-called numbers is  
whether or not the numbers *REPRESENT* something which may be  
copyrighted.  Furthermore, copyright has _always_ been independent of  
representation; a person owns copyright on a book regardless of  
whether it's hardback, softcover, digital, memorized, etc.  The  
person who owns the copyright on a book is able to prevent someone  
who has memorized the book from giving public recitals of said book,  
and the neuron-linkage-based storage the brain uses is about as far  
as you can possibly get from twiddling magnetic bits on a disk drive  
or dumping carbon-based inks on a page made of plant cellulose.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
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/