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 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
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>,
	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 Sep 2006, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 
> 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 think a judge could rule on almost anything, almost any way. Some judges 
seem to have less sense than a well-trained rabbit (see the lawsuit about 
"The Wind Done Gone", where at least one judge blocked it.

Judges are just people, after all.

So yes, clarifications are good. No question about that. There's a reason 
I added mine. Just to tell everybody else, and to make sure there's as 
little gray area in that place as humanly possible.

So I'm not saying that "v2 only" language is _bad_. I'm just saying that 
it shouldn't matter. It's technically enough to just say "GPLv2", and you 
don't really have to say anything else.

			Linus