Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759989AbXFPAAc (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759111AbXFPAAW (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:22 -0400 Received: from 216-99-213-120.dsl.aracnet.com ([216.99.213.120]:45472 "EHLO clueserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758249AbXFPAAU (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) From: alan X-X-Sender: alan@blackbox.fnordora.org To: Al Viro cc: Alexandre Oliva , Chris Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 In-Reply-To: <20070615235715.GA21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <20070615215334.GA1347791@hiwaay.net> <20070615235715.GA21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1526 Lines: 35 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:13:54PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams wrote: >> >>> Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what >>> he wanted >> >> spirit != letter. He liked the letter. He couldn't even tell spirit >> from letter 2 or 3 days ago. >> >> The spirit is the motivations behind the author of the license. >> Anyone who thinks the motivations of RMS and the FSF are not defending >> users' freedoms, as defined in the Free Software Definition, hasn't >> been around for very long. > > Aha. I.e. "similar in spirit" means simply "written according to > motivations of RMS and FSF". Which means, of course, that RMS and > FSF are the sole judges in that area. There is just one problem: > it's not vague enough to be stated openly in the license. Can't > scare the suckers away - that would reduce the user freedoms, right? I always thought that the "Spirit of the GPL" runs around 180 proof and involves Laudanum. -- "ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined. ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C..." - Alan Cox - 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/