Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758209AbXFQIQA (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:16:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754711AbXFQIPm (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:15:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:41462 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753681AbXFQIPk (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:15:40 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:15:21 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Jesper Juhl , Alan Cox , Chris Friesen , Linus Torvalds , 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 Message-ID: <20070617081521.GC6267@elte.hu> References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706150308.20148.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706151715.55218.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070615215734.GB16371@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3529 Lines: 81 * Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > > On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > >> >> >> It is also clear, thanks to language directly in the GPLv2 > >> >> >> itself, that there is no "intent" of the license to cover > >> >> >> that situation. > > >> >> You're again confusing legal terms with the intent. The legal > >> >> terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along > >> >> with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better > >> >> job at that. > > >> > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the > >> > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing. Just as it is not the > >> > *intent* of RMS, the FSF or *ANY* person (or legal entity) that had > >> > a hand in crafting the GPLv2 or GPLv3 which is looked at when > >> > determining the "intent" of the license. It is the intent of the > >> > person and/or "legal entity" that has placed their work under said > >> > license. > > >> No disagreement. You keep forgetting that I'm not here to say what > >> Linux licensing means or doesn't mean. > > > it is _you_ forgetting to read what you wrote just 1 mail ago above. > > _Read_ it: > > > "The legal terms provide an indication of the intent, but the > > preamble, along with the free software definition it alludes to, do > > an even better job at that.". [...] > Now, the spirit of the GPL, the intent behind its design, is something > that may be entirely different. And when I say that GPLv3 didn't > change the spirit of the GPL, I'm saying that from the perspective of > someone who understands very deeply the philosphy and motivations > behind it. why do you start babbling about the GPLv3 when the false statement you made was about the GPLv2 - as visible _very_ clearly in the first quote above?? Again, as a reminder, this point was presented to you (see the quotes above), in the discussion about whether the Tivo is fine by the GPLv2 or not: ' It is also clear, thanks to language directly in the GPLv2 itself, that there is no "intent" of the license to cover that situation. ' to which you replied with this falsehood: ' You're again confusing legal terms with the intent. The legal terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better job at that. ' and you have simply been pointed out that what you say is trivially false - the simple legal fact is that the GPLv2 does not "embedd" more than what is its letter and, to the lesser extent that letter may be ambigious, what Linus' (and other copyright holders') intent is and was. Not RMS's external intentions or the "free software definition" you mention. how about just simply admitting that you were wrong about this, instead of putting up (and beating down) yet another non-sequitor strawman argument? Is that really that hard and embarrasing to do? I've yet to see a _single_ instance of you admitting in this thread that "oops, it seems i was really wrong about this point. Sorry.". Or are you one of those perfect humans who are never wrong? ;-) Ingo - 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/