Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758675AbXFOWqb (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:46:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755895AbXFOWqY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:46:24 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:49325 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754917AbXFOWqX (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:46:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:45:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Michael Gerdau cc: Daniel Hazelton , Alexandre Oliva , Lennart Sorensen , Greg KH , debian developer , "david@lang.hm" , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 In-Reply-To: <200706160006.26428.mgd@technosis.de> Message-ID: References: <200706150825.15491.mgd@technosis.de> <200706160006.26428.mgd@technosis.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1503 Lines: 42 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Michael Gerdau wrote: > > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. I'm sorry, but that's simply bullshit. The GPLv2 does not state that you have to become a slave of rms and follow him in all things, and agree with him. Really. You must have read some other (perhaps unreleased early draft?) version. The GPLv2 says what it says. Not what you (or rms) *wished* it says. You don't enter into contracts and licenses based on wishes and intents. That's just not how it works. > > (b) The language in the preamble: "must give the recipients all the > > rights that you have" means really *all* the rights and abilities! > > I always did imply a "within reason". Your view is not relevant. The fact that the "preamble" is not the "conditions" is what's relevant. The preamble is explicitly stated to be *different* from the exact conditions. It's not the real "terms of copying". It's there to explain, it's not there to *be* the license. It's explanatory, but the wording that actually *matters* is the "terms and conditions". And the fact that *you* can mentally add words to it when you read the license (adding a "within reason") has absolutely no relevance what-so-ever. Linus - 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/