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: <20070615224403.GA23721@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:44:03 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>,
	"david@...g.hm" <david@...g.hm>,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

* Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> > My experience with german courts has shown me that the judges I had 
> > to deal with always and foremost did apply a reality check and did 
> > not try to bisect the consequences like an algorithm evaluated by a 
> > machine, i.e. the tried to decide what is right and wrong and not 
> > whether the letter of the contract could be twisted this or that 
> > way.
> 
> This is the way it should be. However, the letter of the contract, in 
> this case, is very clear and that hasn't stopped Herr Welte at all.

btw., still ianal, but the GPLv2 is not a "contract" but a "pure 
copyright license". A contract, almost by definition is a restriction of 
rights in exchange for consideration - while if you accept the license 
of a GPLv2-ed work this act only gives rights that you did not have 
before. Furthermore when you get source code of free software then there 
is no "meeting of minds" needed for you to accept the GPL's conditions, 
and only the letter of the license (and, in case of any ambiguities, the 
intent of the author of the code) matters to the interpretation of the 
license, not the intent of the recipient. (while in contract cases both 
the meeting of minds is needed and the intent and understanding of both 
parties matters to the interpretation of the contract.)

	Ingo
-
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/