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

From: Adrian Bunk
Date: Thu Jun 14 2007 - 11:20:36 EST

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> > Reality check:
> >
> > Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys
> > required to run the Linux kernel they ship on their hardware.
> No, the *real* reality check:
> The operative words here are "convinced companies" - as opposed to "convinced
> a judge to rule that private keys are required to be disclosed". (I just
> checked around on, and I don't see any news items that say
> they actually generated citable case law on the topic of keys...)
> Harald convinced companies that it was easier/cheaper/faster to provide the
> private keys than to continue in a long legal battle with an uncertain outcome.
> If the company estimates the total loss due to keys being released is US$100K,
> but the costs of taking it to court are estimated at US$200K, it's obviously
> a win (lesser loss, actually) for the company to just fold.

Here in Germany, the rules at court are roughly "the loser pays
everything including the costs of the winner", so if a big company is
sure they will win at court there's no reason not to go there.

And if they did the effort of using private keys to only allow running
an official firmware, they must have seen an advantage from doing so.

I'm not saying it legally clear the other way round, my statement was
an answer to Daniel's emails claiming it was clear what such companies
do was legal.



"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

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