Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
From: Tim Post <tim.post@netkinetics.net>
Reply-To: tim.post@netkinetics.net
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <200706172319.22381.a1426z@gawab.com>
References: <200706172319.22381.a1426z@gawab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Net Kinetics
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:16:20 +0800
Message-Id: <1182143780.21797.1443.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1322
Lines: 42

On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 23:19 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:

> 
> Wow!
> 
> Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for 
> modification?
> 
> 
> Thanks for being GPL!
> 
> --
> Al
> 

If the GPL2 were itself modifiable, there would be so many GPL licenses
that the term "Relased under the GPL 2" would only indicate you chose
one of a million licenses or wrote your own.

That may not be a bad thing, not for me to debate. But I think that's
why the FSF imposes the restriction. I don't feel that is unreasonable,
but you might, and its your right to do so and be vocal about it.

You could, of course take what language that you agree with, re-write it
and make it your own and add a clause that allows people to modify the
license provided that they do not call it the "XYZ" license any longer.

But you wouldn't be making a license - you'd be making the raw material
for people to make their own license. 

I don't think that's what the FSF wanted to accomplish. Again, just my
opinion. I didn't make the GPL so there's no way I could know.

Best,
--Tim


-
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/