| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEGOEJAC.davids@webmaster.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:03:29 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> To: "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 > Can you explain to me how it is that the Tivoization provisions (the > only objection you have to GPLv3) conflict with this? Is it really that hard to understand? GPLv2 applied only to works people chose to place under that license or to works that contain so much code that someone chose to place under that license that they are legally considered a derivative work. GPLv3, on the other hand, attempts to extend control over works that don't contain any code that anyone ever chose to place under the GPL. This is a night and day difference. The GPLv2 stands within the legal scope of copyright. If I create a work, I have some rights to control that work. If you create a work *based* *on* *my* *work* I can retain some rights over how this new work is used because it actually *contains* parts of my work in it. The GPLv2 makes no attempt to exercise any control over anything else. The GPLv3, however, attempts to leverage copyright control to restrict what can be done with things completely outside the covered works. DS - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists