Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754524AbXFNRpy (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:45:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751571AbXFNRpq (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:45:46 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:52923 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750771AbXFNRpp (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:45:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:44:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Adrian Bunk cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Daniel Hazelton , Alexandre Oliva , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 In-Reply-To: <20070614171504.GT3588@stusta.de> Message-ID: References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706132140.13490.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614020827.GO3588@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614025640.GQ3588@stusta.de> <9578.1181793617@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20070614152034.GS3588@stusta.de> <20070614171504.GT3588@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1995 Lines: 51 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I'm wondering more and more why you choose the GPL and not the BSD > licence for the Linux kernel... Why do people confuse "anti-GPLv3" with "pro-BSD"? What's the logic? The BSD license is not doing tit-for-tat. It doesn't give me anything back. I don't believe in that kind of model. So I'd not use it for my projects. The GPLv2 has a good balance. It encourages tit-for-tat, and it makes sure that the software is kept free. And it doesn't try to force anything else, or play politics. The only thing you have to believe in is "tit-for-tat". The GPLv3 goes too far. It's no longer "tit-for-tat", it's "our software is worth _soo_ much, that we want to force you to behave well, or you cannot use it". I think one of the above licenses are good. The fact that I reject the GPLv3 in _no_ way implies that I should like the BSD license. Both the BSD license and the GPLv3 are flawed - they are just flawed in fundamentally different ways. So the whole question of "why don't you use he BSD license then" is just fundamentally bogus. A license is about a *balance* of things. "Fairness" is not about laissez-faire (BSD) or about total-control (GPLv3). To me, It's about something in the middle, where people give back in kind. And btw, that "to me" is important. Different people have different opinions. That's _fine_. Use the GPLv3 for your projects. Go wild. Use the BSD license. It's your choice. But by the same token, it was _my_ choice (and it was an informed choice) to use the GPLv2. And to then come in fifteen years later and call me "confused" about a license I've chosen is a damn affront to me. I'm not confused. Somebody else may be, but it's not me. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/