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: <7b69d1470706152244g8b23932i1f04e369f226fd0d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:44:09 -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:
> 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?
---

Sorry - I thought you were saying ambiguity would be resolved in favor
of the user. If you meant in favor of the licensee (regardless of that
limiting the user's rights), then I agree.

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/