Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757295AbXFPFoU (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:44:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752601AbXFPFoM (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:44:12 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.237]:31981 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751804AbXFPFoK (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:44:10 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=QRUFsf5UKGuCgb0kU7PjbiavAozv2mnokAi0F9PWtPdsjPUwEXoKQPGKuwExCTYLKdyLpAHzFO/C/kN444kG7l4j3HVOIJhX4q5CuN9v8YvOBL1KFdKQvhAIunV/xB5BqQtpQ1rH+vFWKdUynl6LSVi2IRdBhXOA5DJupf5RGng= Message-ID: <7b69d1470706152244g8b23932i1f04e369f226fd0d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:44:09 -0500 From: "Scott Preece" To: "Alexandre Oliva" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 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" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200706160006.26428.mgd@technosis.de> <200706151830.46175.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070615224403.GA23721@elte.hu> <7b69d1470706151756m364985d2xd7c1dbb9b203df28@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1547 Lines: 34 On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > 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? --- Sorry - I thought you were saying ambiguity would be resolved in favor of the user. If you meant in favor of the licensee (regardless of that limiting the user's rights), then I agree. scott - 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/