Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758032AbXFSGYc (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:24:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754272AbXFSGYZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:24:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:50094 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752829AbXFSGYY (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:24:24 -0400 To: Al Viro Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Bron Gondwana , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , 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 References: <200706161817.36657.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706162306.14516.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070617051451.GD21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20070618221511.GI21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:23:39 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070618221511.GI21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Mon\, 18 Jun 2007 23\:15\:12 +0100") 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: 2692 Lines: 67 On Jun 18, 2007, Al Viro wrote: > I.e. the phrase about similar spirit should be replaced with > something far more explicit and very, very hard to miss. This is a very good idea. Would you please file it at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments? > I don't think you need more proof that people *do* interpret it in > very different ways, with quite unpleasant results. Agreed. >> Is it correct to say that you share Linus' opinion, that the only >> problem with the GPLv3 is the anti-tivoization provision? > No. Thanks for your detailed analysis. I wish I knew what to do with it. (I decline impolite suggestions, thanks ;-) Would you like me to put you in touch with Richard Fontana, one of the lawyers involved in GPLv3, that's regarded as a legalese compiler, to discuss your issues about wording with him? Or would you rather file them (with a bit more detail) at gplv3.fsf.org/comments? Aside from wording issues, which appear to dominate your comments, is it fair to characterize that your objections to GPLv3 are anti-tivoization provisions (strong) and Affero compatibility (weak?)? I'm setting wording issues aside because these are easier to fix once the problem is understood, rather than ideological differences, that would probably be pointless to attempt to fix. > 7 - if I want to give additional permissions, I don't > want them stripped, for fsck sake! There is a > bog-standard mechanism for _that_ (dual-licensing), > thank you very much. additional permissions are indeed a form of dual-licensing, but one that doesn't require one to create a copy of the GPL and add the additional permissions to that copy. Yes, it could be accomplished with dual-licensing terms such as "you can follow the terms of the GPL, with the following additional permissions". I don't quite see the point of criticizing this. This is more informative than anything else. The meat here is really in the few additional restrictions, and the provisions to combat the practice of adding restrictions on top of the GPL and claiming the software is available under the GPL, which has made for a lot of confusion over time. Thanks a lot for your feedback. -- 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/