Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758699AbXFOVJi (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:09:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755689AbXFOVJa (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:09:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:35871 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754856AbXFOVJ3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:09:29 -0400 To: "Dmitry Torokhov" Cc: "Bernd Paysan" , "Paulo Marques" , "Al Viro" , "Krzysztof Halasa" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706151014.45383.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> <46727CCF.9030905@grupopie.com> <200706151403.57178.bernd.paysan@gmx.de> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:08:53 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Dmitry Torokhov's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 14\:46\:35 -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: 2412 Lines: 58 On Jun 15, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" wrote: > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" wrote: >> >> > On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> >> On Friday 15 June 2007 13:49, Paulo Marques wrote: >> >> >> >> > No, it is not "any version". It is the license specified in COPYING and >> >> > nothing else. >> >> >> >> COPYING says in section 9 that there may be other versions, and if you as >> >> author don't specify the version, it's "any version". >> >> > Please read this sentence over and over until it sinks: >> >> I believe he was talking about the sentence just after the one you >> quoted: >> >> If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, >> you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software >> Foundation. > My response to this is that by including an entire copy of specific > version of GPL in the release the version number was specified. It's not that simple. Including a copy of the license is a license requirement for any redistributor, yes. But if you, a sole copyright holder, were to distribute your program, without any copy of the GPL, claiming "it's under the GPL", you're not a violator. Then, any redistributor adds a copy of any version of the GPL (because you didn't specify a version number). At this point, is the program licensed by *you* only under this specific license? Now, if you picked one of the various versions of the license, to make things easier for redistributors, does it mean you're choosing that particular version of the license, even though the license itself says otherwise? > You can't say that inclusion of copy of GPL is enough to specify > class of licenses (all GPL) but not specific version. I can't say either of these, indeed. Or rather, I can, but I wouldn't know whether I was right ;-) -- 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/