Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753791AbXFUFWM (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:22:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751358AbXFUFV7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:21:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40403 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751124AbXFUFV6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:21:58 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dave Neuer , Helge Hafting , Daniel Hazelton , Chris Friesen , Paul Mundt , Lennart Sorensen , Greg KH , debian developer , "david\@lang.hm" , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <4671B734.1040401@nortel.com> <200706142155.34298.dhazelton@enter.net> <46791A35.4000009@aitel.hist.no> <161717d50706200958o53ae986fv635e18b9b6a17e85@mail.gmail.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:19:32 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed\, 20 Jun 2007 11\:03\:54 -0700 \(PDT\)") 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: 2696 Lines: 63 On Jun 20, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > It allows everybody do make that choice that I consider to be really > important: the choice of how something _you_ designed gets used. > And it does that exactly by *limiting* the license to only that one work. > Not trying to extend it past the work. Actually, the two paragraphs above are contradictory, and the second is not true in as much as it gives way to the former. Consider an independent file contributed to Linux. It is an independent work. But the moment it gets combined with Linux, the only license you can use is GPLv2. Consider a patch, or any modified version of Linux. It's another work. But the license applies to it as well. Similarly, the GPL affects patents that somehow cover the work: the distributor can no longer enforce them against downstream users of the software. See? > The GPLv3 can never do that. It does it in just the same way that GPLv1 and GPLv2 do: "no further restrictions". That it has to make some of them explicit, such that people understand they apply, or such that this provision can't be trampled on by other laws that by default trample copyright law, is just a legal implementation detail. > It's missing the point that "morals" are about _personal_ choices. You > cannot force others to a certain moral standpoint. FWIW, I tend to consider morals more of a society issue than an individual issue. Morals encode what the society understands to be the common good, and that's often something evolutionary, even with biological roots. Laws (as you say) try to reflect the morals of the society, but since it's based on morals, it often lags behind. Which is why some laws become forgotten and no longer applied, even if still applicable in theory. And that's also why (as you alluded to in your message), when laws actively diverge from morals, you observe a lot of civil disobedience: think DRM, DMCA, non-benevolent dictatorships and other abusive regimes. I must say that it *is* lovely to watch you talk about morals in ways that I agree so much with, even if I dissent in a some details. This has further increased my admiration for you. Thank you. -- 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/