linux-kernel - Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

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: <orejk4edfl.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:00:30 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, davids@...master.com,
	"Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

On Jun 22, 2007, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote:

> has probably made it made it much more *unlikely* that the Linux
> kernel will ever go GPLv3.

That was a given from the start.  The spin that there was any chance
whatsoever it could possibly happen was just that.  Even if Linus
could possibly consider this, others have made it pretty clear that
this was never an option for them, and Linus' explosion at my first
one-liner intervention on GPLv3 isn't exactly a sign of being
considering something reasonably.

So, no, as I've repeatedly stated, I wasn't here to convince anyone to
adopt GPLv3.  I know you won't believe me.  I don't care.

I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.  I knew
from the start that it was an uphill battle, and that I wouldn't be
able to convince those who distrusted the FSF so much that they would
listen to anything that resembled an FSF discourse with an extremely
high rejection level.  This was all expected.

I wasn't here to convince them.  I knew I wouldn't.  I was here to set
the record straight on the spirit of the GPL, not towards the most
vocal opponents, but for others who hadn't formed an opinion,
prejudiced or not.  I was here to inform about GPLv3, not to push it.

That I was perceived as pushing it is not surprising at all.  The
perception of "being forced" whenever something resembling the FSF
ideology comes up is so strong here that some people just stop
listening, stop thinking rationally (limbic system take-over?), or
even get into outright name calling.  No surprise here.  I knew this
was hostile territory, and I came prepared for this.

I feel I have accomplished my goal: I've informed a lot of people
about the GPL, about GPLv3, about Free Software and even about the
FSFes.  Whether they make a decision for GPLv3, GPLv2, or more liberal
Free Software licenses, is up to them.  Now, people who'd only been
exposed to the prevailing views in this list can take something
different into account, and make more-informed decisions.

Thanks for listening.

o-o

-- 
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/