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: <200706261344.23906.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:44:23 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <oliva@....ic.unicamp.br>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> wrote:
> >> Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
> >
> > No, but that's besides the point.
>
> Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
>
> > You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be
> > chaos.
>
> That's not *quite* how it works, but that's a general idea, yes.
>
> >> How are the sources passed on in this way going to benefit the user or
> >> the community?
> >
> > They still have to provide the source by other GPL means of their
> > choosing.
>
> This is contradictory.  You said the scenario I described was
> permitted, and the scenario included the vendor's refusal to give
> customers other copies of the sources.
>
> Which is it?

I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not 
directly; i.e.  they could give you a third-party download link.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/