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: <or645ox1c9.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:08:38 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Florin Malita <fmalita@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	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 Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't.  Still, encoded in the spirit (that
>> >> refers to free software, bringing in the free software definition), is
>> >> the notion of protecting users' freedoms, among them the freeom #0, to
>> >> run the software for any purpose.
>> >
>> > And where in GPLv2 is "Freedom #0"?
>> 
>> It may sound like thin evidence for someone arriving from Venus today,
>> but the preamble talks about "free software", some passages clearly
>> imply that software under this license is "free software", the license
>> is published by the Free Software Foundation, and the Free Software
>> Foundation has a published definition of Free Software that
>> establishes the 4 freedoms.

> And that doesn't matter.

Doens't matter for what?

To indicate what the Linux copyright holders meant?  Sure it doesn't.
I never claimed it did.

To indicate what the authors of the GPL meant?  To indicate the spirit
of the license they wrote?  Yes, it matters a lot.

And the latter is what my participation here is all about: to show
that the spirit didn't change at all.

Until you acknowledge and understand this, I should refrain from
answering your other postings.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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/