On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >> And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work >> of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have >> you)
> Wait, a signed filesystem image that happens to contain GPL code > is now a derived work? Under what sort of interpretation does *that* > occur? Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed component, as much as it is derived from the key? Isn't the signature is a functional portion of the image, i.e., if I take it out from the system, it won't work any more? > (This pretty much throws the 'aggregation' premise in GPLv2 completely > out.) Not really. It could take some explicit distinguishing between functional and non-functional signatures, but that's about it. GPLv3 chose a different path to make this clarification. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
