Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754733AbXFNSO7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:14:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751830AbXFNSOw (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:14:52 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:44228 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751724AbXFNSOv (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:14:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:14:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alexandre Oliva cc: Adrian Bunk , Daniel Hazelton , 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: Message-ID: References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706131946.15714.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614004419.GL3588@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: 2403 Lines: 61 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), > > and you cannot modify that copy that you got. > > And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was quite obvious. That's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT! There is no language in the GPLv2 (only in the GPLv3 drafts) about "same upgradability as third parties". You're arguing a point that DOES NOT EXIST in the GPLv2. The GPLv2 talks about specific rights, like the ability to make changes and distribute things, and says that you have to give downstream all those same rights. And I've pointed out to you (now about five times) that those rights CANNOT be able "in-place", since even Red Hat does not actually give you the right to do in-place modification of the software they sell. > The 'passing on the rights you have' makes it an issue. No. It does not. I have extra rights as a copyright holder, and that "the rights you have" are as they pertain to the software under the GPLv2, not as it pertains to the physical device, or outside the GPLv2. For example, for any code that I have full copyright over, I have rights that you DO NOT HAVE! I have the right to re-license it under some other license. The fact that I pass on a copy of the software to you under the GPLv2 does *not* give you those rights, but that's not even what the GPLv2 asks for! The GPLv2, when it talks about "passing on the rights", talks about the rights you got *per*the*GPLv2*. Any other reading is nonsensical, since the copyrigth owner *always* has more rights than a licensee! I legally literally *couldn't* pass over all the rights I have to my software! If you read the GPLv2 as meaning that I have to, you are mis-reading it. It's that simple. Anyway, I'm not interested in continuing this flame war. The fact is, the license for the kernel is the GPLv2. And I think it's a superior license. As such, I'd be a total moron to relicense the kernel under what I believe is a worse license. So if you want to argue that I should re-license, you should argue that the GPLv3 is better. And quite frankly, you haven't. 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/