Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

From: Matt Keenan
Date: Thu Jun 14 2007 - 11:03:24 EST

Michael Poole wrote:
> Matt Keenan writes:
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> Err, no. Software, per legal definitions in Brazil, US and elsewhere,
>>> require some physical support. That's the hard disk in the TiVO DVR,
>>> in this case. I don't see how this matters, though.
>> I'm now intrigued, where are these (Brazilian and US) definitions
>> stipulated, and under what authority?
> In the US, 17 USC 101 (the "Definitions" section of the title dealing
> with Copyright) makes this definition:
> 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.
> As its purpose is to outline the scope of copyright law, this
> definition is made under the authority granted to Congress by Article
> I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
But where is the part that says it "requires some physical support"? It
says what it is; "a set of statements or instructions", how it should be
used; "to be used directly or indirectly in a computer", and what
purpose it serves; "in order to bring about a certain result", but it
doesn't seem to indicate that it "requires physical support" aka needing
some physical representation. I suspect this argument boils down to the
philosophical debate of whether ideas (in this case software) can be
truely devoid of the physical.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at