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:0.493 / U:3.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site