Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 | From | Michael Poole <> | Date | Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:25:29 -0400 |
| |
Tomas Neme writes:
>> A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be >> used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about >> a certain result. >> -- US Code, Title 17, Section 101 > > so?
People keep arguing that the signature is somehow not part of the kernel or not subject to copyright law. I suspect they do not realize how broad the legal definition of "computer program" is.
> Not GPL related, but casino machine software that needs to be approved > by the casino regulation office in Argentina need to provide source, > compiling instructions AND binaries, and the binaries must pass a diff > check. This is impossible without a hacked compiler since the > timestamps WILL differ. > > Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and > even less make sense.
This discussion is about copyright and the GPL, not legal quirks. I am aware of a large number of silly results reached by law.
> plus, and I repeat myself.. the program comes with no warranties whatsoever. > > and if your complains are purely moral, see it this way: if TiVo > didn't sign their kernel, digital cable providers wouldn't give them > their hash keys, and they wouldn't be able to show HD signals, > rendering them useless, and making them go bankrupt... so they'd go > BSD, because they ARE a company after all, and they are after The > Moneys.. > > no?
The GPL does not guarantee anyone a viable business model. Following it is not conditional on profitability. It is only conditional on exercising rights that are granted by the GPL.
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/
| |