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 20:09:29 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 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?

Because I can't divine what's in your mind, and if you don't make the
points you want to make clear, I may very well fail to 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!

With the exception of those who choose not to distribute their
changes.  Or who choose to distribute their changes to people who are
not willing to share them with you.  Fair enough.

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

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

Yes.  I even wrote an article about that.

http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite

> Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? 

Yes.  It's there in the article as well.  The difference is basically
in attitude.  Tit-for-tat is adversarial (equivalent retaliation),
whereas Quid pro quo is cooperative (a favor for a favor).

> Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years.

Yup, I remember that.

>> > 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.

And in what sense the GPLv3 anti-Tivoization clause doesn't?

In what sense does it give you *less* of what you want?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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/