linux-kernel - Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

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:	Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:59:38 +0200
From:	DervishD <lkml@...vishd.net>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
Cc:	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
	Sergey Panov <sipan@...an.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Patrick McFarland <diablod3@...il.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

    Hi Jörn :)

 * Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de> dixit:
> On Thu, 28 September 2006 16:19:32 +0200, DervishD wrote:
> >     Probably the renaming is just common sense and will avoid ALL
> > problems. People like me are concerned only because all GPLv2 that
> > doesn't state otherwise will be released automagically under GPLv3 as
> > soon as the latest draft is made the official version. Otherwise, I
> > wouldn't give a hump about any new license until I have the time to
> > read it and see if I like it.
> 
> In my very uninformed opinion, your problem is a very minor one. 
> Your "v2 or later" code won't get the license v2 removed, it will
> become dual "v2 or v3" licensed.  And assuming that v3 only adds
> restrictions and doesn't allow the licensee any additional rights,
> you, as the author, shouldn't have to worry much.

    Really my problem is that I still don't fully understand neither
the new license nor the possible effects, so just in case I want to
decide if I want my code dual licensed or not. It's not a big worry,
I know, but I prefer things that way.

> The problem arises later.  As with BSD/GPL dual licensed code,
> where anyone can take the code and relicense it as either BSD or
> GPL, "v2 or v3" code can get relicensed as v3 only.  At this point,
> nothing is lost, as the identical "v2 or v3" code still exists. 
> But with further development on the "v3 only" branch, you have a
> fork.  And one that doesn't just require technical means to get
> merged back, but has legal restrictions.

    See? I didn't have seen things from this point of view, and
that's the kind of problems I want to be aware of before allowing my
code to be dual licensed.

> And here the kernel wording with "v2 only" in the kernel is
> interesting.  It turns a one-way compatibility into no
> compatibility at all.  So the evolutionary advantage is lost, as it
> only exists through the "v2 or later" term.

    Well, in my code that's exactly what I want regarding licenses.
Probably GPLv3 is better (I don't know yet) and probably GPLv4 will
be the best license out there, but I prefer to be precise about what
license do I use.

    Thanks for your explanations :)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!
-
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/