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]

Message-Id: <200706141023.21624.bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:23:20 +0200
From:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
To:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:14, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> It seems so.
>
> > But it has this upgrade option, and one possible interpretation of
>
>       ^^
>
> > Linus' comment is "no, it doesn't have this update option".
>
> It? What "it"?
> I don't get it. If you say the licence is v2 only, then how can it have
> options?

By section 9. The license is v2, and basically allows to update the 
license - and it makes this a choice of the user (who also has rights to 
change stuff and redistribute it).

> > If I use GPL as license, I'm under "GPL regime", i.e. the terms of the
> > GPL apply.
>
> First, the local and international laws apply. It's not like selling your
> soul to the devil.

Contract law means that first and foremost the contract itself defines the 
rules, and only if it is not or contradicts the law, the law jumps in. The 
GPL is not really a contract, it's a license, but the law is not much 
different here, especially once you accept the GPL. If you put your code 
under GPL, the text in the GPL is the deal. The law is only the framework 
under which the deal works.

If you accept the M$ EULA, international law still applies, yet you are 
selling your soul to the devil (because the EULA sais so).

> > Now, I may rewrite those few "GPLv2 only" files, and
> > then I have a GPLv2-or later compatible linux-some.version-bp kernel.
>
> Sure, you can rewrite all non "GPLv2 or later" code and have v3 Linux.
> The problem is you think only "few" files are v2.

Because only few files say so, and they must say what they mean, because GPL 
is rather clear that if you put a file which doesn't say which version 
applies under GPL, it's "any GPL". Why is it so difficult to grok section 9 
of the current GPLv2, which people claim is well understood?

A number of kernel hacker deliberately want their work under GPLv2 only 
(like Al Viro), and they are fully entitled to do that - but they must 
announce it in a propper place (not lkml or lwn.org), and a comment in 
COPYING signed by Linus Torvalds doesn't seem to be propper to me, 
especially when the GPLv2 gives a procedure how to do it (look for the 
appendix: "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs").

There are good reasons to follow the advice there, and those who did follow 
the advice in the Linux kernel in the vast majority said "GPLv2 or later". 
Verbatim copy without understanding? Or is it rather that the other people 
who didn't follow the advice didn't read the GPL, and therefore understand 
it even less ;-)?

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped