Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes
>> restrictions, that's ok

> Sure. I think it's ok that Microsoft imposes restrictions too on the 
> software they create. It's *their* choice.

Last I looked, TiVO was not the author of Linux.  Did you sell out or
something? ;-P :-D

> So tell me, why do you think I'm confused about the GPLv3?

I think you're confused about the spirit of the GPL, that applies
equally to v1, v2 and v3.

I think you're confused because you claim the GPL is tit-for-tat, that
it encourages/requires (you haven't been consistent) contributions in
kind, but the only contribution in kind is respect for the freedoms of
others.  But then, when measures are introduced to ensure compliance
with this twisted tit-for-tat notion, you claim they're wrong, that
they escape the spirit of the license.

This is why I think you're confused.


That said, it is possible that you disregarded the spirit of the GPL
entirely, focused on some of the legal terms and decided that was
something you wanted for your project.  And that it models what you
want for your project better than GPLv3 does, because GPLv3 takes
the spirit that you disregarded even more seriously than GPLv2.


I still fail to see why what it is in GPLv2 that makes it better to
satisfy your intentions WRT Linux than GPLv3.  I must assume that,
when you say "tit-for-tat", you mean something else, and not respect
for others' freedoms.  If you take the time to explain what it is,
then perhaps it will become clear why you consider the GPLv2 a better
license to achieve your goals, or perhaps it will show that you're
indeed confused about what GPLv2 and GPLv3 mean.

>  (a) Linus knows what he is doing, and isn't actually confused.

I can't say that yet.  Maybe after the points above are sufficiently
explored I will be able to say that.

>  (b) It was my right to use the license of my choice for a project that I 
>      started.

No doubt about it.

>  (c) I have the right to see the difference between the GPLv2 and v3, and 
>      think that the GPLv3 is the inferior license.

You sure do have that right.

> Comprende? MY CHOICE. Not the FSF's. Not yours. Not anybody elses.

Until you started accepting contributions from others, yes.


BTW, in Portuguese the correct spelling would be "compreende", with a
double 'e'.  "Comprende" is Spanish, and in Brazil, where I live, we
speak Portuguese.  But thanks for trying, that's appreciated ;-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/