Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754262AbXFOL5b (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:57:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752755AbXFOL5Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:57:24 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46190 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751650AbXFOL5X (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:57:23 -0400 X-Authenticated: #153925 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+Sg7MttOuS38doO7HFJIG99PfXuwQK5UiXTrJ1C0 MLjcfbC+VCjCr1 From: Bernd Paysan To: Rob Landley Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:57:10 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Carlo Wood , Linus Torvalds , Alexandre Oliva , 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 References: <20070614020827.GO3588@stusta.de> <20070614231812.GA9463@alinoe.com> <200706142149.19883.rob@landley.net> In-Reply-To: <200706142149.19883.rob@landley.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1877088.Ttpcd2sc7M"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200706151357.17418.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3448 Lines: 77 --nextPart1877088.Ttpcd2sc7M Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 15 June 2007 03:49, Rob Landley wrote: > (Right now, nobody EXCEPT the FSF has the right to sue somebody to > enforce the license terms on something like gcc. Do you find that a > comforting thought?) Have you ever signed a copyright transfer agreement to the FSF? Obviously=20 not, because then you wouldn't utter such nonsense. The agreement reads=20 that you transfer a non-exclusive right to the FSF to distribute the code=20 under GPL (versions of your choice, they have this right anyway, but making= =20 it explicit is always good), and the right to enforce the license. You=20 still have the right to relicense the work as you like. You also have the=20 right to enforce the license yourself, or to transfer that right to=20 somebody else like gpl-violations.org. The FSF even doesn't require to=20 transfer copyright if you make a GNU project, but if you don't, the FSF=20 won't help you (because they can't). They make very obvious promises about what they care ("four freedoms"), and= =20 that they will be very consistent in doing so. So far, all track records=20 have proven that they indeed are very consistent in doing so - the main=20 controversy here is not whether the FSF protects the "four freedoms", but=20 whether these four freedoms are the right goal, and if they really should=20 try so hard to protect these four freedoms. This part of the discussion is= =20 fully acceptable, what's not acceptable is that the Linus-fancurve claims=20 things the GPL sais which it doesn't (like "tit-for-tat") or doesn't say=20 which it does (like section 6 - direct license from the licensor, and in=20 cases like Linux where no copyright transfer agreements whatsoever exist,=20 these are the individual contributors). Or that Linux 0.something was=20 already under GPLv2 only, when GPLv2 clearly says that there may be=20 updates, and when you as author don't say something, you are allowing users= =20 to update if they like. The last point IMHO makes clear that my interpretation of the comment is=20 valid: This is a commend made by Linus Torvalds, as how he understands or=20 misunderstands the license text. It's not even something you can take as=20 legal advice, because Linus is not a lawyer (fortunately - think how the=20 kernel would look like if it was programmed by a lawyer ;-). Sure, if you as outsider strip the kernel of obvious GPLv2-only code to=20 relicense it as a whole under GPLv3, you need a good asbestos suite, a good= =20 lawyer, and good arguments. But let's assume Microsoft really succeeds with= =20 its patent FUD against Linux, and the only way out is GPLv3, when will=20 opinions here change? =2D-=20 Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ --nextPart1877088.Ttpcd2sc7M Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGcn6di4ILt2cAfDARArpcAJ4/VqAHpqnsTK0hLR4e1tVgrDAHpACg2ogp bruCtWabcSXlHQHOUPOWeJE= =Rfn7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1877088.Ttpcd2sc7M-- - 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/