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]

Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
cc:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering more and more why you choose the GPL and not the BSD 
> licence for the Linux kernel...

Why do people confuse "anti-GPLv3" with "pro-BSD"?

What's the logic?

The BSD license is not doing tit-for-tat. It doesn't give me anything 
back. I don't believe in that kind of model. So I'd not use it for my 
projects.

The GPLv2 has a good balance. It encourages tit-for-tat, and it makes sure 
that the software is kept free. And it doesn't try to force anything else, 
or play politics. The only thing you have to believe in is "tit-for-tat".

The GPLv3 goes too far. It's no longer "tit-for-tat", it's "our software 
is worth _soo_ much, that we want to force you to behave well, or you 
cannot use it".

I think one of the above licenses are good. The fact that I reject the 
GPLv3 in _no_ way implies that I should like the BSD license. Both the BSD 
license and the GPLv3 are flawed - they are just flawed in fundamentally 
different ways.

So the whole question of "why don't you use he BSD license then" is just 
fundamentally bogus. A license is about a *balance* of things. "Fairness" 
is not about laissez-faire (BSD) or about total-control (GPLv3). To me, 
It's about something in the middle, where people give back in kind.

And btw, that "to me" is important. 

Different people have different opinions. That's _fine_. Use the GPLv3 for 
your projects. Go wild. Use the BSD license. It's your choice. 

But by the same token, it was _my_ choice (and it was an informed choice) 
to use the GPLv2. 

And to then come in fifteen years later and call me "confused" about a 
license I've chosen is a damn affront to me. I'm not confused. Somebody 
else may be, but it's not me.

		Linus
-
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/