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 23:57:34 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3


* Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> wrote:

> >> You're again confusing legal terms with the intent.  The legal 
> >> terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along 
> >> with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better 
> >> job at that.
> 
> > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the 
> > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing. Just as it is not the 
> > *intent* of RMS, the FSF or *ANY* person (or legal entity) that had 
> > a hand in crafting the GPLv2 or GPLv3 which is looked at when 
> > determining the "intent" of the license. It is the intent of the 
> > person and/or "legal entity" that has placed their work under said 
> > license.
> 
> No disagreement.  You keep forgetting that I'm not here to say what 
> Linux licensing means or doesn't mean.

it is _you_ forgetting to read what you wrote just 1 mail ago above. 
_Read_ it:

  "The legal terms provide an indication of the intent, but the 
   preamble, along with the free software definition it alludes to, do 
   an even better job at that.".

Your point was totally bogus, and you have been pointed out that your 
point was bogus. And your answer - instead of admitting that you were 
wrong once again (i'm not even asking you to apologize for wasting our 
time) - to pretend that there is "no disagreement" and to patronize your 
discussion partner with a "you keep forgetting ..." phrase and a 
non-sequitor statement? How low can this discussion get? I'm truly 
amazed ...

	Ingo
-
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/