lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3


    On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
    >
    > We can agree to disagree as to our opinions, if you want.

    That's all I ever asked for.

    This whole thread started with me saying:

    I see the smiley, but I hate it how the FSF thinks others are morons and
    cannot read or think for themselves.

    Any time you disagree with the FSF, you "misunderstand" (insert
    condescending voice) the issue.

    _Please_ don't continue that idiocy. Disagreement and thinking that the
    FSF is controlling and putting its fingers where they don't belong is
    _not_ misunderstanding. It's just not "blind and unquestioning obedience".

    so all I asked for in the first place was that you stop claiming that I
    had "misunderstood" anything.

    That's really all I've always asked for:

    - I chose the GPLv2, and I understand it.

    - you don't have to agree with my choice, but you *do* have to accept it
    if you want to work on Linux. Because it's the only license that Linux
    has ever been released under since early 1992.

    So as long as you follow the GPLv2 (as a _legal_ license), I don't care if
    you like it or not. I don't care if you think you are a modern-day
    Napoleon, or if you are a demented squirrel. I don't care if you are an
    axe-murderer, or if you make sex toys with Linux. I don't care if your
    hardware is open or closed.

    I care about one thing, and one thing only: I care that you respect my
    choice of license for the projects _I_ started. Nothing more.

    And it doesn't matter one whit if *you* would have made a different
    choice. You are not me. You don't hold any power over me, and *your*
    choices are your own - not mine.

    Choice of license is personal. Many people think that the BSD license is
    better than _any_ version of the GPL. Are they wrong? No, it's _their_
    choice. Is it relevant for the kernel? No, their preference of license is
    simply irrelevant. They can choose to accept the license that the kernel
    is under, or go play somewhere else.

    I think the GPLv2 is superior to the GPLv3. That is simply not something
    you can argue against. You can just say "ok, it's your choice". You can
    ask me *why*, and I've told you at length, but in the end, it doesn't
    matter.

    And no, it's not because I'm "special", and I get to make all decisions.
    It's simply because I am _me_, and when it comes to my own opinions, I
    actually _do_ get to make all the decisions.

    You can disagree, and choose to use the GPLv3. You just cannot do it for
    the *kernel*, because they kernel has always been under the GPLv2, and the
    GPLv3 is simply not compatible, and asks for things that the kernel
    license has never asked for.

    But if you prefer the GPLv3, that's _your_ choice, and that choice can
    certainly guide you in the licensing of _your_ projects where _you_ are
    the copyright holder. And I will never complain.

    Linus
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-18 21:47    [W:5.137 / U:0.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site