Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759067AbXFOV6B (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:58:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755136AbXFOV5v (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:57:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:41645 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752370AbXFOV5u (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:57:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:57:34 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Jesper Juhl , Alan Cox , Chris Friesen , 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 Message-ID: <20070615215734.GB16371@elte.hu> References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706150308.20148.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706151715.55218.dhazelton@enter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1765 Lines: 40 * Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> You're again confusing legal terms with the intent. The legal > >> terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along > >> with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better > >> job at that. > > > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the > > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing. Just as it is not the > > *intent* of RMS, the FSF or *ANY* person (or legal entity) that had > > a hand in crafting the GPLv2 or GPLv3 which is looked at when > > determining the "intent" of the license. It is the intent of the > > person and/or "legal entity" that has placed their work under said > > license. > > No disagreement. You keep forgetting that I'm not here to say what > Linux licensing means or doesn't mean. it is _you_ forgetting to read what you wrote just 1 mail ago above. _Read_ it: "The legal terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better job at that.". Your point was totally bogus, and you have been pointed out that your point was bogus. And your answer - instead of admitting that you were wrong once again (i'm not even asking you to apologize for wasting our time) - to pretend that there is "no disagreement" and to patronize your discussion partner with a "you keep forgetting ..." phrase and a non-sequitor statement? How low can this discussion get? I'm truly amazed ... Ingo - 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/