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: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706161952280.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	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>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.

No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't 
*agree* on the "spirit".

You think that there is only one "spirit", and that you own the code-book, 
and that your spirit is thus the only right one.

This is where we started. The same way you seem to think that "freedom" 
has only the meaning *you* and the FSF give it, and that somehow the 
spirit of the GPL includes the "four freedoms" that aren't even 
_mentioned_ in it.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

But equally importantly, it's not even *relevant*. Nobody is suing the FSF 
for contract violation for changing the spirit. Yes, people have brought 
out the argument that the GPLv3 actually even changes the spirit, and you 
don't seem to realize that people can have different opinions. You just 
repeat YOUR OWN OPINION about the spirit over and over again.

But even if the spirit changes, so what? The GPL doesn't actually say 
"same in spirit". It says "similar in spirit", implying that the spirit is 
"similar". 

In other words, your arguments are wholly irrelevant.

> I've already explained that the anti-Tivoization provision is in line
> with it.

.. and we have already explained to you that it's irrelevant. 

So let's get back to the *real* issue:

 - The GPLv2 was ok with Tivo.

   I really tried to explain to you *why* that was, but by now, I can't be 
   bothered any more. Even if you cannot understand it, just accept it. 

   And if you have a hard time accepting it, just accept the fact that the 
   FSF thinks Tivo cannot be sued, which is just another way of saying 
   "they didn't actually break the license".

 - *I* think Tivo is fine. Other people think Tivo is fine. Other people 
   have told you they think what Tivo did is fine. Some people have even 
   said that they don't like Tivo, but that they don't think the license 
   should stop Tivo.

 - The GPLv3 tries to stop Tivo.

Instead of mumbling about your spirit and feelings (I need to be a whole 
lot more drunk before I start caring), how about you look at those three 
statements, and then admit that you see why the people in bullet#2 think 
that

	GPLv2 is a better license than GPLv3

I don't *care* how you mangle the "spirit of the GPLv2", because that was 
never the issue.

What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2, and 
that I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I?

So just stop *whining* about this.

The GPLv3 is the worse license, for anybody who thinks that what Tivo did 
should not be against the license. It really is that simple.

And again: you don't even have to *like* Tivo to realize that the license 
itself shouldn't try to spell out some anti-Tivo measures. As I've _also_ 
tried to explain, the anti-Tivo measures are actually more than just "anti 
Tivo". They are also "anti-anything-else-that-might-want-to-lock-down-a-
specific-version-for-security-or-regulatory-reasons".

But in the end, it really hinges on a very simple concept:

 - Not everybody thinks like you or agrees with you.

 - In particular, the original copyright author in the kernel does *not* 
   think like you, and *realized* that he doesn't really like the FSF 
   religious agenda years and years ago, and made sure that the FSF cannot 
   control the licensing of the Linux kernel.

If you don't accept those two simple *facts*, I don't know what's wrong 
with you.

			Linus
-
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/