[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b69d1470706151756m364985d2xd7c1dbb9b203df28@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:56:48 -0500
From: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
To: "Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Daniel Hazelton" <dhazelton@...er.net>,
"Michael Gerdau" <mgd@...hnosis.de>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"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
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> wrote:
> > * Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
>
> That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
> chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the terms, many courts
> will interpret it in a way that privileges the licensee, regardless of
> the fact that copyright licenses are to be interpreted restrictively
> (at least in Brazilian law). And IANAL ;-)
---
Hmm. In such a suit, however, the user would not be "the licensee" and
would not be a party to the suit - some author would be the plaintiff
and would be suing someone for doing something in violation of the
license that author granted - that is, the *defendant* would be the
licensee who would get the benefit of the doubt...
scott
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists