Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751458AbXFVE2N (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:28:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750899AbXFVE16 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:27:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:42284 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750868AbXFVE15 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:27:57 -0400 To: Al Viro Cc: davids@webmaster.com, "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? References: <20070622013417.GT21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:26:54 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070622013417.GT21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Fri\, 22 Jun 2007 02\:34\:17 +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: 2883 Lines: 62 On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it >> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court >> against a copyright holder, then it can't? That this is the same >> privilege to veto additional permissions that Al Viro has just >> claimed? > You know, I'm rapidly losing any respect for your integrity. The only > "privelege" claimed is that of not relicensing one's contributions. No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever, that's all noise out of not understanding the suggestion. You objected to granting additional permissions. You have that right, per copyright law, and the other developers can then decide between not granting an additional permission or removing all the code you contributed such that they can. That's veto. Similarly, if someone proposed an additional unambiguous permission to tivoize under GPLv2, any developer who objected to it could veto it (the alternative being to remove all of his contributions). > What really gets me is that you know it. Yes. The only disagreement is that I'm talking "additional permission to combine" and you seem to keep understanding "relicensing", even though these are very different concepts, with significantly different consequences. What they have in common is that you can veto either one with your status as copyright holder, and that they would both permit some forms of cooperation. Permission to relicense would provide for one-way cooperation out of Linux. I'm not proposing this. That would be stupid. You've already decided about it. I respect that decision. I even understand why you made that decision. Relicensing would provide for two-way cooperation, but under terms that you don't consider acceptable. You've pretty much already decided not to do it. I respect that decision. I even understand why you made that decision. Permission to combine in both sides would provide for two-way cooperation in ways that enable each author to enforce the terms s/he chose for his/her own contributions. This would address many of the concerns raised about relicensing, and would increase the amount of contributions in kind you can get. -- 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/