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: <ory7il51ix.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:39:50 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	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 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> You're making an artificial distinction based on whether the
> *SOFTWARE* has a certain license or not.

What matters to me is that, when the GPL says you can't impose further
restrictions, then you can't, no matter how convoluted your argument
is

>> That's exactly what makes for the difference between the spirit and
>> the precise legal terms, and why GPLv3 is fixing these divergences.

> And the reason behind this is all "ethics and morals".

There was never any attempt to hide that this was what the Free
Software movement was about, and that the GPL was about defending
these freedoms.

Sure, it has other advantages.  But the goal has always been the same,
and it's not going to change.

> If the intent of a law (or license) is to do A but it doesn't say
> that, then how is the intent to be known?  Your answer: Ask the
> author.

No, you interpret based on what the author wrote then.

You read the preamble, and any other rationales associated with the
license or law.  I don't know how it's elsewhere, but in Brazil every
law has a rationale, and that's often used to guide its interpretation
in courts, even though the rationale is not part of the law.

If the author realizes what he wrote was not enough, or it got
misinterpreted, author his text, and then whoever feels like it and is
entitled to adopts the revised version.

In the GPLv2=>v3 case, all that needed revision was the legalese.  The
preamble has barely changed.  This is a strong indication that the
spirit remains the same, is it not?

> Unless the intent is clearly spelled out at the time the law (or
> license) is written, or is available in other writings by the author
> of the law/license from the same time period as the law/license then
> it is impossible.

Is there anything not clear about freedom #0, in the free software
definition, alluded to by the preamble that talks about free software
in very similar terms?

-- 
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/