Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759355AbXFUUDR (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:03:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754648AbXFUUDJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:03:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52699 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752640AbXFUUDH (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:03:07 -0400 To: david@lang.hm Cc: jimmy bahuleyan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? References: <467A6290.80602@gmail.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:02:52 -0300 In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Thu\, 21 Jun 2007 11\:00\:40 -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: 2135 Lines: 51 On Jun 21, 2007, david@lang.hm wrote: > this is standard dual-licensing, not special just becouse both > licenses are GPL versions No, seriously, it's not, it's quite different. If you dual-license your code between GPLv2 and GPLv3, I could combine your code with code under GPLv3, distribute it, and if anyone tivoized your code, I might be able to enforce the anti-tivoization provisions against the tivoizer. With a mere permission to combine, I can only enforce these provisions over my own code. I see that, for tivoization, the end result is very much the same as an all-GPL, although the tivoizer still has the option of removing the GPLv3 code and hoping GPLv2's implicit anti-tivoization provisions are not enforced. This would be just undoing the additional cooperation that this additional permission would have provided. However, for other GPLv3 defenses, it would make a difference. For example, on the patent licenses that are implicit in GPLv2 and explicit in GPLv3. > and for people who don't like one or the other of the two licenses > this will not be acceptable becouse it would allow someone else to > take their work, modify it a bit, and release the result only under > the license that they don't like Which is precisely why I suggested this approach of permission to combine, rather than as dual licensing. Because then nobody could do what you say. > one of the big problems that people don't realize is that if it takes > GPLv3+ exception to be compatible with the apache license For the record, it doesn't, GPLv3 is going to be compatible with the apache 2.0 license, no additional exceptions needed. -- 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/