Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757042AbXFODld (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:41:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753365AbXFODlY (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:41:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:37447 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751749AbXFODlX (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:41:23 -0400 To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , 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 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706141918.15954.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706142237.31289.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:39:50 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706142237.31289.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Thu\, 14 Jun 2007 22\:37\:30 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) 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: 2471 Lines: 61 On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > You're making an artificial distinction based on whether the > *SOFTWARE* has a certain license or not. What matters to me is that, when the GPL says you can't impose further restrictions, then you can't, no matter how convoluted your argument is >> That's exactly what makes for the difference between the spirit and >> the precise legal terms, and why GPLv3 is fixing these divergences. > And the reason behind this is all "ethics and morals". There was never any attempt to hide that this was what the Free Software movement was about, and that the GPL was about defending these freedoms. Sure, it has other advantages. But the goal has always been the same, and it's not going to change. > If the intent of a law (or license) is to do A but it doesn't say > that, then how is the intent to be known? Your answer: Ask the > author. No, you interpret based on what the author wrote then. You read the preamble, and any other rationales associated with the license or law. I don't know how it's elsewhere, but in Brazil every law has a rationale, and that's often used to guide its interpretation in courts, even though the rationale is not part of the law. If the author realizes what he wrote was not enough, or it got misinterpreted, author his text, and then whoever feels like it and is entitled to adopts the revised version. In the GPLv2=>v3 case, all that needed revision was the legalese. The preamble has barely changed. This is a strong indication that the spirit remains the same, is it not? > Unless the intent is clearly spelled out at the time the law (or > license) is written, or is available in other writings by the author > of the law/license from the same time period as the law/license then > it is impossible. Is there anything not clear about freedom #0, in the free software definition, alluded to by the preamble that talks about free software in very similar terms? -- 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/