From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:44:23 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200706172319.22381.a1426z@gawab.com> <200706260717.19677.a1426z@gawab.com> <orzm2n44s8.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
In-Reply-To: <orzm2n44s8.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200706261344.23906.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1157
Lines: 39

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:
> >> Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
> >
> > No, but that's besides the point.
>
> Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
>
> > You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be
> > chaos.
>
> That's not *quite* how it works, but that's a general idea, yes.
>
> >> How are the sources passed on in this way going to benefit the user or
> >> the community?
> >
> > They still have to provide the source by other GPL means of their
> > choosing.
>
> This is contradictory.  You said the scenario I described was
> permitted, and the scenario included the vendor's refusal to give
> customers other copies of the sources.
>
> Which is it?

I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to mean: not 
directly; i.e.  they could give you a third-party download link.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/