From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755558AbXFNUsl (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:48:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751570AbXFNUse (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:48:34 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:3250 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751016AbXFNUsd (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:48:33 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:47:41 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <200706141033.22605.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:48:05 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:48:06 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > What about if your GPL program ends up in a piece of hardware > (e.g. a ROM, > or an embedded ROM, or if it's some GPL code from OpenCores, as gate > netlist in silicon)? My interpretation is that you need a permission from > the author for doing that, unless there's an easy way to replace > it with a > modified copy (e.g. if you put the OpenCores stuff into an FPGA, > replacing > the configuration PROM would do it). The GPL does not require it to be easy in fact to modify the piece of software. It just requires that you have the right to modify it, that is, that there be no legal obstacles in your way. You are entitled to the source code in modifiable, understandable form. There are no legal restrictions, other than those in the GPL and in the law, on what you can do with it. What you are actually *able* to do, however, depends upon a wide variety of factors way outside the scope of the GPL. By the way, I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that *if* you provide me a binary made from GPL'd code that required a key to produce that binary, I am entitled to that key. The key is precisely analogous to any other piece of source code -- it is mathematically 'combined' and 'processed' by tools to produce the final, distributed executable. If there's some rational basis for a legal difference between a signing key and a header file, I don't know what it is. DS