From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
To: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:49:11 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <64689.192.54.193.51.1181901773.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <49716.192.54.193.51.1181907922.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <49716.192.54.193.51.1181907922.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200706151449.12068.dhazelton@enter.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2029
Lines: 45

On Friday 15 June 2007 07:45:22 Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > And, as I've taken the time to explain to you, lacking any clear
> > statement, written at the exact same time as the license, a
>
> statement of
>
> > intent or spirit cannot have any real legal weight when the text of a
> > license is finally decided upon.
>
> Fortunately the Law recognizes humans are not computers, natural
> langage is not unambiguous binary code, so statements of intent *have*
> legal value when a legal text is open to interpretations.
>
> That's why ten-line law paragraphs are published with the hundreds of
> pages of parliamentary discussions on them, which the judge will
> consider if there's any doubt in his mind.

You've just made my point for me.

Those "Hundreds of pages of parliamentary discussions" are *exactly* because 
the intent of the law is being made *clear* at the same time the law is being 
written. If the GPL is intended to cover situation like tivoization it isn't 
made clear by the preamble at all - and the fact that the GPL, in version 2, 
at least, *specifically* limits its scope to *THREE* "activities" also 
creates a problem for your argument.

To quote: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are 
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

To try and claim that it is the *INTENT* or the *SPIRIT* of a piece of legal 
text that contains such specific limiting text is idiotic. I may not be a 
lawyer - hell, I may not have a degree of any kind - but I do know that a 
clear and unambiguous statement like that can't be argued to mean anything 
different *without* twisting the meaning of - or giving extra meaning to - 
some of the words.

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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/