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: <200706151202.13708.bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:02:11 +0200
From:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sean <seanlkml@...patico.ca>, 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 Friday 15 June 2007 07:24, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:20:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
> > other people's improvements, cannot be taken without qualification.
>
> No.  Linus and other Linux kernels might *want* to take other people's
> improvements, but thanks to Richard Stallman's choices for GPLv3, they
> can *not* legally take other people's improvements without violating
> the GPLv3 license.  That's not their fault, it's the fault of people
> who wrote the GPLv3 license, promulgated the GPLv3 license, and who is
> attempting to convince everyone that the GPLv3 license is the only
> valid license for Right Thinking FSF automatons to use.

Ah no, it's their fault. The GPLv2 always was clear that there will be some 
future releases of the GPL, and that you should keep "upgrading" possible.

> There are plenty of things that I might *want* to do, that I am
> legally prohibited from doing.  that doesn't change the fact that I
> might want to do it.  The fact that GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2
> is a tragedy, in the Greek sense.

The GPLv2 tries hard to be compatible with any further versions of the GPL 
as possible, by allowing people to choose which license you take, and by 
making sure that no man in the middle can restrict this choice. If people 
deliberately select to use "GPLv2 only", who's to blame? RMS? Come on, 
that's bullshit. It's *Linus Torvalds* who made Linux incompatible with 
GPLv3, nobody else - ok, Al Viro with his tagged GPLv2 files (and honestly, 
I think this is just another Linus misinterpretation about the GPL, and he 
really didn't do it, because he couldn't).

This thread was fun, but I think all arguments have been repeated often 
enough. I try to give up. I suggest everyone who has some assertions about 
what the GPLv2 does read it through and find the place where it says so. 
Unfortunately, I haven't seen GPL citations from the Linus-fanboy curve, 
only suggestions that the GPL "does not say something" which it clearly 
does.

-- 
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