Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757577AbXFNWqW (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:46:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752961AbXFNWqM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:46:12 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:58793 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752203AbXFNWqL (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:46:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alexandre Oliva cc: Adrian Bunk , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, 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> <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> 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: 2419 Lines: 64 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the > > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. > > Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. Why do you bother sending out emails that just show that you cannot read or understand? I want not just the code *I* write to be freely available. I want the modifications that others release that are based on my code to be freely available too! That's what the whole "tit-for-tat" thing was all about! Doyou even understand what "tit-for-tat" means? Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years. > > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the > > improvements back. > > GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. > > It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the > benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. You are living in some alternate world. The GPLv2 gives me exactly what I looked for. Yes, people can do improvements in private, and by keeping them private they'll never need to release them to anybody else. Big deal. I don't care. By keeping them private, I never see the end result anyway, so they "don't exist" as far as I'm concerned. > > And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than > > the GPLv3? > > No. Honestly, I really don't. Yeah. So stop bothering me then. Go cry on somebody elses shoulder. Just accept the fact that I'm a grown person, in full control of my faculties, and that I'm perfectly able to make my own judgements, and that I don't need to follow the FSF blindly. And it doesn't even matter if you don't understand me. That is, as I've said, _your_ problem. I've done my best to explain to you, but if you are so limited that you cannot understand that other people have other opinions than yours, there really is only so much I can do for you. Go away. 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/