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: <200706151357.17418.bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:57:10 +0200
From:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
To:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:	Carlo Wood <carlo@...noe.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	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 03:49, Rob Landley wrote:
> (Right now, nobody EXCEPT the FSF has the right to sue somebody to
> enforce the license terms on something like gcc.  Do you find that a
> comforting thought?)

Have you ever signed a copyright transfer agreement to the FSF? Obviously 
not, because then you wouldn't utter such nonsense. The agreement reads 
that you transfer a non-exclusive right to the FSF to distribute the code 
under GPL (versions of your choice, they have this right anyway, but making 
it explicit is always good), and the right to enforce the license. You 
still have the right to relicense the work as you like. You also have the 
right to enforce the license yourself, or to transfer that right to 
somebody else like gpl-violations.org. The FSF even doesn't require to 
transfer copyright if you make a GNU project, but if you don't, the FSF 
won't help you (because they can't).

They make very obvious promises about what they care ("four freedoms"), and 
that they will be very consistent in doing so. So far, all track records 
have proven that they indeed are very consistent in doing so - the main 
controversy here is not whether the FSF protects the "four freedoms", but 
whether these four freedoms are the right goal, and if they really should 
try so hard to protect these four freedoms. This part of the discussion is 
fully acceptable, what's not acceptable is that the Linus-fancurve claims 
things the GPL sais which it doesn't (like "tit-for-tat") or doesn't say 
which it does (like section 6 - direct license from the licensor, and in 
cases like Linux where no copyright transfer agreements whatsoever exist, 
these are the individual contributors). Or that Linux 0.something was 
already under GPLv2 only, when GPLv2 clearly says that there may be 
updates, and when you as author don't say something, you are allowing users 
to update if they like.

The last point IMHO makes clear that my interpretation of the comment is 
valid: This is a commend made by Linus Torvalds, as how he understands or 
misunderstands the license text. It's not even something you can take as 
legal advice, because Linus is not a lawyer (fortunately - think how the 
kernel would look like if it was programmed by a lawyer ;-).

Sure, if you as outsider strip the kernel of obvious GPLv2-only code to 
relicense it as a whole under GPLv3, you need a good asbestos suite, a good 
lawyer, and good arguments. But let's assume Microsoft really succeeds with 
its patent FUD against Linux, and the only way out is GPLv3, when will 
opinions here change?

-- 
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