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: <orps3vjf93.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:56:24 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 Jun 17, 2007, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> wrote:

> It's full of kludges exactly because it tries to carve out a notion
> that can only be determined on case-to-case basis and not by generic
> definition.

I agree it's a very difficult definition.  I'm not sure I'm happy with
the wording in place right now.  But I very much like and agree with
its purpose, and it is in line with the goal of respecting and
defending users' freedoms, which is what the FSF cares mostly about,
and must care about, because it's its official and public mission.

> I don't _care_ whether it breaks spirit, etc.

That's what I care about, and I've seen false claims that it does.

Can you please acknowledge that it doesn't, such that I can feel I've
fulfilled my goal of dispelling the myth that the GPLv3 changes the
spirit of the GPL?

> GPLv3, with your involvement in its development or not, sucks rocks,
> thanks to what you call anti-tivoization section.

Is it correct to say that you share Linus' opinion, that the only
problem with the GPLv3 is the anti-tivoization provision?

To make this more concrete, if there was a hypothetical GPLv2.9,
consisting of GPLv3dd4 minus the "installation information"
requirements for user products, (i) Would you consider it a better
license than GPLv2?  (ii) Better for Linux?  (iii) Enough to go
through the trouble of switching?

I'd love answers to these 3 questions from others too.

Just in case, I shall point out, one more time, that I'm speaking for
myself, not for the FSF, not for FSFLA, not for Red Hat.  The
questions above are to satisfy my personal curiosity.  I don't make
any commitment whatsoever to take the answers up to the FSF, and I
don't want to set any expectations as to whether they could or would
make any difference, at this point, about the outcome of GPLv3.

If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
running short.

-- 
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/