Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757916AbXFOTx4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:53:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753946AbXFOTxs (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:53:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40937 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753231AbXFOTxr (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:53:47 -0400 To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Bron Gondwana , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <20070615041149.GA6741@brong.net> <200706150202.00345.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:53:24 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706150202.00345.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 02\:02\:00 -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: 1729 Lines: 35 On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > You have repeatedly stated that if a system runs a GPL'd system then > all rights to the system that the manufacturer has *must* be passed > on to the end-user. Not really, not to the entire system. The spirit is not clear in this regard, when it talks about "all rights", but I understand it means "all rights related with the program", i.e., "you must let others do with the program everything that you can". > Before you answer - this question is *NOT* based on any interpretation or > reading of the GPLv3. What it is based on is statements you have repeatedly > made. So no claims this being already covered, and no claims that this isn't > a situation covered by the GPLv3. Sorry that I have been unclear. This just goes to show that what we write isn't always the whole story, and quite often intent doesn't shine through the words. While legal terms have a stronger demand for clarity and non-ambiguity, intent and other less-formal forms of communication often depend on a lot of context for correct interpretation. And then, if multiple interpretations are possible, the only resort is to ask the author and hope s/he still remembers what s/he meant. -- 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/