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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706151658000.27993@blackbox.fnordora.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	alan <alan@...eserver.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
cc:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	Chris Adams <cmadams@...aay.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:13:54PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams <cmadams@...aay.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what
>>> he wanted
>>
>> spirit != letter.  He liked the letter.  He couldn't even tell spirit
>> from letter 2 or 3 days ago.
>>
>> The spirit is the motivations behind the author of the license.
>> Anyone who thinks the motivations of RMS and the FSF are not defending
>> users' freedoms, as defined in the Free Software Definition, hasn't
>> been around for very long.
>
> Aha.  I.e. "similar in spirit" means simply "written according to
> motivations of RMS and FSF".  Which means, of course, that RMS and
> FSF are the sole judges in that area.  There is just one problem:
> it's not vague enough to be stated openly in the license.  Can't
> scare the suckers away - that would reduce the user freedoms, right?

I always thought that the "Spirit of the GPL" runs around 180 proof and 
involves Laudanum.

-- 
"ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C..."
                                   - Alan Cox
-
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/