Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759342AbXFPA5Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:57:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751471AbXFPA5R (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:57:17 -0400 Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50737 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751382AbXFPA5Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:57:16 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Michael Gerdau Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:57:02 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Alexandre Oliva , Lennart Sorensen , Greg KH , debian developer , "david@lang.hm" , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <20070615222229.GA20176@elte.hu> <200706160140.24017.mgd@technosis.de> In-Reply-To: <200706160140.24017.mgd@technosis.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706152057.03129.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1490 Lines: 37 On Friday 15 June 2007 19:39:57 Michael Gerdau wrote: > > > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his* > > > > intent in writing it. > > > > > > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...] > > > > ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. The license says what > > it says, and that is what controls. The intent of the author (of Linus > > and other copyright holders) is a secondary source of information /if > > and only if/ any ambiguity of meaning arises (as determined by a judge, > > not by you or me). But the opinion and intent of RMS (unless adopted by > > Linus) is quite immaterial. > > I agree with the "/if and only if/ any ambiguity of meaning arises" part. > I'm sorry I didn't make that clear before. > > However if that situation arises (i.e. the judge decides there is an > ambiguity) then as far as my experience tells me it is the intention of > the author (RMS et al in this case) that counts. But I erred before... I doubt this. In a situation like that the intent of the licensor is what matter, not the intent of the original author of the license. DRH > Best wishes, > Michael -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - 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/