Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759564AbXFPBlf (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:41:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757724AbXFPBl2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:41:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38645 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757689AbXFPBl0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:41:26 -0400 To: "Scott Preece" Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "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> <7b69d1470706151756m364985d2xd7c1dbb9b203df28@mail.gmail.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:40:53 -0300 In-Reply-To: <7b69d1470706151756m364985d2xd7c1dbb9b203df28@mail.gmail.com> (Scott Preece's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 19\:56\:48 -0500") 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: 1506 Lines: 32 On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" wrote: > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> > * Daniel Hazelton wrote: >> >> 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 ;-) > --- > Hmm. In such a suit, however, the user would not be "the licensee" and > would not be a party to the suit - some author would be the plaintiff > and would be suing someone for doing something in violation of the > license that author granted - that is, the *defendant* would be the > licensee who would get the benefit of the doubt... Yes. And so justice is made. Licensor gets to pick the license, licensee gets the benefit of the doubt. What's the 'however' about? Was this not obvious? -- 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/