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.0.98.0706151520300.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michael Gerdau <mgd@...hnosis.de>
cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	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>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> 
> I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view.

I'm sorry, but that's simply bullshit. 

The GPLv2 does not state that you have to become a slave of rms and follow 
him in all things, and agree with him. Really. You must have read some 
other (perhaps unreleased early draft?) version.

The GPLv2 says what it says. Not what you (or rms) *wished* it says.

You don't enter into contracts and licenses based on wishes and intents. 
That's just not how it works. 

> >  (b) The language in the preamble: "must give the recipients all the 
> >      rights that you have" means really *all* the rights and abilities!
> 
> I always did imply a "within reason". 

Your view is not relevant. The fact that the "preamble" is not the 
"conditions" is what's relevant. 

The preamble is explicitly stated to be *different* from the exact 
conditions. It's not the real "terms of copying". It's there to explain, 
it's not there to *be* the license.

It's explanatory, but the wording that actually *matters* is the "terms 
and conditions".

And the fact that *you* can mentally add words to it when you read the 
license (adding a "within reason") has absolutely no relevance 
what-so-ever.

			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/