[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
> > With the GPLv2, you need to give your software modifications back, but
> > the
> ^^^^ BZZT!
> > GPLv2 never *ever* makes any technical limitations on the end result.
> Actually, just think of how many times you've heard the argument "I
> can't give you the source code for this driver/firmware/etc under the
> GPLv2 because the law says so."

Sorry to tell you this, but anyone that makes a modification to GPLv2 covered
code and distributes that modification is bound by the license. If a law
makes following the license illegal, then they can't use any rights granted
by the license. They are breaking the law by refusing to follow the license.

> > The GPLv2 requires that you give source code out.
> ^^^^^^^^ BZZT ;-)
> > But if you want to make your hardware in a way that it only runs
> > signed versions, because of some reason like an FCC rule, or banking
> > rule, or just because you damn well want, the GPLv2 doesn't stop
> > that.
> And then, the user is stopped from making appropriate technical
> decisions.

You marked the "requires" as an error. Technically it is. Practically,
however, it is rare for a modification to not fall under the "distribution"
part of the license, making the "release the source" requirement active
almost all the time.

> > b) I think you're simply wrong in your math. I think more people
> > like the middle-ground and not-frothing-at-the-mouth spirit of "open
> > source" over the religious dogma of "free software".
> It looks like the math you're talking about is in no way related with
> anything I've argued about. You seem to be thinking about the number
> of people who claim to be on the "free software" or "open source"
> sides, but I can't fathom in what way this is related with whether you
> get more or less contributions from users as a consequence of users'
> being permitted to tinker with the free software in their own devices.

"More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More

That equation is very simple to understand - claiming its wrong is impossible.
> > See? Those are three totally different reasons why I think the GPLv2 is
> > the right license for me, and for the kernel.
> Ok, the only one that stands is the moral reason.

Apparently because you can't admit that a good reason *IS* a good reason when
it conflicts with your belief that the FSF is correct. (The same as
the "Science can't be right because it conflicts with the bible" I hear from
all kinds of Xtians these days)

PS: I know I've said I'm done with this conversation, but this is like a bad
habit. I just couldn't help myself.

Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-19 01:47    [W:0.609 / U:2.048 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site