[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <467ADC8A.5080401@iders.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:16:10 -0500
From: Andrew McKay <amckay@...rs.ca>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>,
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
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <amckay@...rs.ca> wrote:
>
>> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
>> opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
>> licensee.
>
> It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
> actually. It's a lot about making sure no one can acquire a
> privileged position, such that every licensee plays under the same
> rules. (The copyright holder is not *acquiring* a privileged
> position, copyright law had already granted him/her that position.)
>
I do see what you're saying here. But it does take the away the ability of a
licensee to protect themselves from another malicious licensee. If the ultimate
goal of the Free Software community is to get source code out to the public, I
think that was captured in GPLv2. GPLv3 oversteps its bounds.
Anyways I think this topic has been quite covered.
Andrew
-
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