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 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	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, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the 
> > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. 
> 
> Ok, the MIT license could get you that.  Even public domain could.

Why do you bother sending out emails that just show that you cannot read 
or understand?

I want not just the code *I* write to be freely available. I want the 
modifications that others release that are based on my code to be freely 
available too!

That's what the whole "tit-for-tat" thing was all about!

Doyou even understand what "tit-for-tat" means?

Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? 
Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years.

> > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the
> > improvements back.
> 
> GPL won't get you that.  You want a non-Free Software license.
> 
> It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the
> benefits of cooperation.  But some players don't.

You are living in some alternate world. The GPLv2 gives me exactly what I 
looked for.

Yes, people can do improvements in private, and by keeping them private 
they'll never need to release them to anybody else. Big deal. I don't 
care. By keeping them private, I never see the end result anyway, so they 
"don't exist" as far as I'm concerned.

> > And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than 
> > the GPLv3?
> 
> No.  Honestly, I really don't. 

Yeah. So stop bothering me then. Go cry on somebody elses shoulder. Just 
accept the fact that I'm a grown person, in full control of my faculties, 
and that I'm perfectly able to make my own judgements, and that I don't 
need to follow the FSF blindly.

And it doesn't even matter if you don't understand me. That is, as I've 
said, _your_ problem.  I've done my best to explain to you, but if you are 
so limited that you cannot understand that other people have other 
opinions than yours, there really is only so much I can do for you.

Go away. 

			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/