Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759325AbXFOXKJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:10:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756204AbXFOXJ6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:09:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:37959 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754858AbXFOXJ4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:09:56 -0400 To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Florin Malita , Linus Torvalds , Adrian Bunk , Alan Cox , 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 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706150157.13631.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706151734.54732.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:08:38 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706151734.54732.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 17\:34\:54 -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: 1915 Lines: 45 On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in the spirit (that >> >> refers to free software, bringing in the free software definition), is >> >> the notion of protecting users' freedoms, among them the freeom #0, to >> >> run the software for any purpose. >> > >> > And where in GPLv2 is "Freedom #0"? >> >> It may sound like thin evidence for someone arriving from Venus today, >> but the preamble talks about "free software", some passages clearly >> imply that software under this license is "free software", the license >> is published by the Free Software Foundation, and the Free Software >> Foundation has a published definition of Free Software that >> establishes the 4 freedoms. > And that doesn't matter. Doens't matter for what? To indicate what the Linux copyright holders meant? Sure it doesn't. I never claimed it did. To indicate what the authors of the GPL meant? To indicate the spirit of the license they wrote? Yes, it matters a lot. And the latter is what my participation here is all about: to show that the spirit didn't change at all. Until you acknowledge and understand this, I should refrain from answering your other postings. -- 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/