Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756594AbXFOXgS (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:36:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751553AbXFOXgI (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:36:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43388 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751480AbXFOXgH (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:36:07 -0400 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Michael Gerdau , Linus Torvalds , 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 References: <200706160006.26428.mgd@technosis.de> <200706151830.46175.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070615224403.GA23721@elte.hu> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:34:59 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070615224403.GA23721@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Sat\, 16 Jun 2007 00\:44\:03 +0200") 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: 2436 Lines: 51 > * 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. And this is the beauty of a multi-author project. Even if some authors think that the license permits something, if any of them understands it doesn't, he can try to enforce that WRT his own contributions. So those exploiting the gray areas of the license can still get caught. On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > 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. In Brazil, this is kind of contract/license is called a beneficial contract. > 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. That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the terms, many courts will interpret it in a way that privileges the licensee, regardless of the fact that copyright licenses are to be interpreted restrictively (at least in Brazilian law). And IANAL ;-) -- 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/