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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:16:46 -0400
From:	Sean <seanlkml@...patico.ca>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:24:32 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote:

> No.  Linus and other Linux kernels might *want* to take other people's
> improvements, but thanks to Richard Stallman's choices for GPLv3, they
> can *not* legally take other people's improvements without violating
> the GPLv3 license.  That's not their fault, it's the fault of people
> who wrote the GPLv3 license, promulgated the GPLv3 license, and who is
> attempting to convince everyone that the GPLv3 license is the only
> valid license for Right Thinking FSF automatons to use.
> 
> There are plenty of things that I might *want* to do, that I am
> legally prohibited from doing.  that doesn't change the fact that I
> might want to do it.  The fact that GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2
> is a tragedy, in the Greek sense.

The _exact_ same arguments are made against the GPLv2 by the BSD folks.

Given that many people here defend the GPLv2 over BSD, it's ironic
the tone and level of vitriol shown against the v3 and such a
willingness to use the same arguments the BSD folks use against v2.

Both v2 and v3 enforce some restrictions that people who want to
participate must obey.  And _yes_ I acknowledge that v3 has _more_
restrictions.  But then, v2 has more restrictions than BSD and we're
more or less happy with that, aren't we?  In fact, many of us
believe it's a virtue that Linux has a more restrictive license
than that of the BSD's.

While this isn't an argument that we should happily accept more
restrictions, hopefully it will put things in a cheerier perspective.
We're not talking about a fundamental disagreement (ie. no restrictions
versus any restrictions); we're simply talking about _degree_ of
restriction.

There's no problem with people voicing honest disagreement with the v3,
but please lighten up a bit on FSF bashing and the Greek tragedy talk.

Sean.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/