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: <orhcp8u15m.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:40:53 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	"Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.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\@lang.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 Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com> wrote:

> 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...

Yes.  And so justice is made.  Licensor gets to pick the license,
licensee gets the benefit of the doubt.  What's the 'however' about?
Was this not obvious?

-- 
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/