Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758076AbXFOWoY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754917AbXFOWoQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:16 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:36711 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754858AbXFOWoP (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:44:15 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:44:03 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Michael Gerdau , Linus Torvalds , Alexandre Oliva , Lennart Sorensen , 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: <20070615224403.GA23721@elte.hu> References: <200706160006.26428.mgd@technosis.de> <200706151830.46175.dhazelton@enter.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706151830.46175.dhazelton@enter.net> 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=3.0.3 -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: 1591 Lines: 31 * Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > My experience with german courts has shown me that the judges I had > > to deal with always and foremost did apply a reality check and did > > not try to bisect the consequences like an algorithm evaluated by a > > machine, i.e. the tried to decide what is right and wrong and not > > whether the letter of the contract could be twisted this or that > > way. > > This is the way it should be. However, the letter of the contract, in > this case, is very clear and that hasn't stopped Herr Welte at all. btw., still ianal, but the GPLv2 is not a "contract" but a "pure copyright license". A contract, almost by definition is a restriction of rights in exchange for consideration - while if you accept the license of a GPLv2-ed work this act only gives rights that you did not have before. Furthermore when you get source code of free software then there is no "meeting of minds" needed for you to accept the GPL's conditions, and only the letter of the license (and, in case of any ambiguities, the intent of the author of the code) matters to the interpretation of the license, not the intent of the recipient. (while in contract cases both the meeting of minds is needed and the intent and understanding of both parties matters to the interpretation of the contract.) 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/