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

From: Florin Malita
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 11:53:52 EST

On 06/15/2007 10:56 AM, Michael Poole wrote:
The GPL cares about the key
used to generate an integral part of the executable form of the GPLed

GLPv2 doesn't: why do you think the digital signature is an integral part of the executable? It can be a totally separate blob, distributed via a separate channel and even stored at a different location than the executable. Does it still look like an integral part of the executable to you then?

(unless of course you're trying to argue that the hash itself is a derivative work, but that has already been refuted many times before.)

The executable does not function properly if it lacks that

It works just fine given the right environment. The right environment may be some other hardware (without DRM restrictions) or the DRMed device + an authorized digital signature. The digital signature is not part of your executable.

Do you honestly believe GPLv2 requires the distributor to provide you with the right environment for your modified copy to "function properly"? I would say it doesn't, but feel free to point me to specific sections which *state* otherwise. AFAICT, GPLv2 is specifically limited to "copying, distribution and modification". How you use (or don't use, or can't use) your modified copy is totally outside its scope.


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