Daniel Hazelton writes: > Following your logic it would be a "failure to distribute the source code for > a work". > > However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot generate a "new" > work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so the signature itself > cannot have a copyright at all. > > DRH > PS: This is the exact same reason that the GPL cannot apply to a Bison > generated parser in the US. The "input" file that causes Bison to generate > the output can have a copyright, but not the output - no matter what RMS or > anyone else wants, and no matter what the GPL says about it.
I do not suggest that copyright subsists in the signature or in the signing key. Whether it does is irrelevant to the signing key being part of the source code (when the signature is needed for the binary to work properly). Similarly, copyright might not subsist in a simple linker script -- its content being determined by the operating system and perhaps the rest of the program's source code -- but under the GPL, the linker script would be part of the source code for a compiled version. Michael Poole - 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/
