Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760693AbXFSCBP (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:01:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760084AbXFSCBA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:01:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43425 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758924AbXFSCBA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:01:00 -0400 To: Joshua David Williams Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <200706181836.53736.yurimxpxman@gmail.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:00:54 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706181836.53736.yurimxpxman@gmail.com> (Joshua David Williams's message of "Mon\, 18 Jun 2007 18\:36\:53 -0400") 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: 2153 Lines: 53 On Jun 18, 2007, Joshua David Williams wrote: > The Open Source Definition ... derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, engineered to reflect the Free Software definition ... > wrote: >> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software >> Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked >> with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, >> not any software with which they are merely distributed. > The way I understand it, programs licensed under the GPLv3 are *not* open > source software. FSF is so caught up in their own agenda that they're > forgetting the whole point - the freedom of choice. Err... Excuse me? Whole point for whom? Free Software is not about freedom of choice. That's an OSI slogan for "if you like, you can shoot your own foot, regardless of whether the shrapnel hurts people around you". http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/139#1 Free Software is about respect for the four freedoms. I don't think the FSF is at all concerned whether GPLv3 complies with the OSD. They couldn't care less. It was OSI that tried to create a definition that matched exactly the meaning of the Free Software definition under "more objective criteria". We already know they failed, since the Reciprocal Public License is accepted as an OSS license, but it's a non-Free Software license. There may be other examples. That said, since a number of people already understand the GPLv2 prohibits tivoization, your argument means that either the comment in the OSD is wrong, and GPLv2 already fails to match the OSD, or that GPLv3 complies with it in just the same way. -- 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/