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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <87d500rz2r.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:19:40 +0200
From:	Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

* Linus Torvalds:

> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at 
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for 
> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about 
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)

In a strange twist, the last-call draft contains a clause that
expressly permits some forms of "tivoization", provided a suitable
contractual arrangement exists ("Basic Permissions", second
paragraph).

Now a lot of the free software market follows this "sell yourself into
slavery" model (and even the FSF recommends to make money this way),
but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to state it so plainly in the
license.
-
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/