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: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706150822050.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@....de>
cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	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 Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> 
> 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.

No. It is clear that you have the *option* of keep upgrading, but it is 
also equally clear that Linux has always decided *not* to exercise that 
option, exactly because I liked the GPLv2, not some "future upgrade".

I decided that long before I saw the GPLv3.

And I'm surprised by people who wonder why I did that.

I'm _intelligent_, dammit. That means that I can foresee the future to 
some degree, at least in the limited sense of what is a likely outcome of 
my actions.

Why are people surprised by the fact that I have foresight? I may be known 
for being an impolite bastard, but quite frankly, anybody who thinks I'm a 
_stupid_ impolite bastard must be missing a page.

You can disagree with my opinions. You can call me obstinate, impolite, 
and opinionated. But quite frankly, very few people have ever found me 
*stupid*.

So give me that - I'm not stupid. That means that I actually *can* predict 
the future to some fuzzy degree, and that people really should *not* be 
surprised by the fact that I never let the FSF control my choice of 
license.

> 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?

There's no "blame". There's only credit.

Besides, you are wrong. The *default* for the GPLv2 in the presense of 
license information is *not* "v2 or later"

In order to get "GPLv2 or later", you actually have to explicitly specify 
it.

I just find it sad that so many people did that, often apparently just 
because they didn't actually read or understand the license.

		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/