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]

Message-ID: <20060928152020.GC21814@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Date:	Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:20:20 +0200
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
	Sergey Panov <sipan@...an.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

On Thu, 28 September 2006 08:04:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> No. I _really_ want to clarify this, because so many people get it wrong. 
> Really.
> 
> The "GPLv2 only" wording is really just a clarification. You don't need it 
> for the project to be "GPLv2 only".
> 
> If a project says: "This code is licensed under this copyright license" 
> and then goes on to quote the GPLv2, then IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE 
> GPLv3!
> 
> Or if you just say "I license my code under the GPLv2", IT IS NOT 
> COMPATIBLE WITH THE GPLv3.

And this is an area where I slightly disagree with you.  While I would
hope that you were right, I can easily imagine a judge ruling that "v2
or later" in the preamble means that the project just signed a blank
license of the FSF's discretion.

I can just as easily imagine a judge ruling that "simply copying the
GPL license verbatim and not removing the 'or later'" clause is does
not sufficiently demonstrate the authors intent to dual-license the
code.

And the likelihood of either ruling will depend on many things, but
will never reach 0 or 1.  It is a gray area where your legal advice is
just as bad as mine and your "GPLv2 only" clarification may in fact be
a fork I was talking about.  We just don't know until this has been
tested in court, which hopefully never happens.

Jörn

-- 
Joern's library part 11:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
-
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/