lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    From
    Date
    On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <amckay@iders.ca> wrote:

    > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
    >> On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <amckay@iders.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
    >>> opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
    >>> licensee.
    >>
    >> It's more of a balance of freedom between licensee and licensee,
    >> actually. It's a lot about making sure no one can acquire a
    >> privileged position, such that every licensee plays under the same
    >> rules. (The copyright holder is not *acquiring* a privileged
    >> position, copyright law had already granted him/her that position.)

    > I do see what you're saying here. But it does take the away the
    > ability of a licensee to protect themselves from another malicious
    > licensee.

    Sorry, I don't follow what the "it" refers to in your sentence.

    > If the ultimate goal of the Free Software community is to get source
    > code out to the public, I think that was captured in GPLv2.

    That's a correct logical inference, but since the premise is false,
    the conclusion is garbage.

    GPLv2 goes far beyond getting source code out to the public. It
    contains the "no further restrictions" language, which is very
    powerful. It is pretty obvious that when Linus adopted GPLv2 he
    didn't realize it reached that point. That when Tivo invented
    Tivoization, he decided he wanted to permit this, and thus grants an
    implicit additional permission for anyone to do it with his code,
    doesn't mean other participants in the Linux community feel the same
    way, or read the GPLv2 the same way, and could be somehow stopped from
    enforcing the license the way they meant it.

    Ultimately, the current situation is that we have two
    mutually-incompatible license intents being used in Linux, and no
    matter how much those who want to grant the permission say so, this
    doesn't trample other contributor's rights to enforce the license they
    chose for their code. Especially those who started contributing long
    before the decision that "what TiVo does is good" was announced.

    Now, since these two license intents are expressed by the same
    license, and what the license demands is that derived works must be
    under the same license, they are compatible, but since the intents are
    distinct, what prevails is, as in any case of combination of different
    licensing provisions, is the most restrictive provision.

    So Linux does not permit tivoization today. Linus does, Linux
    doesn't.

    All this fuss about the anti-tivoization provisions in GPLv3 is just a
    consequence of reading the GPLv2 without fully understanding its
    intended consequences, not having foresight to clarify the intent to
    constrain the "no further restrictions" provisions to match the
    alternate interpretation, and opposing the removal of the ambiguity
    because it doesn't match the choice that *some* of the developers
    would like it to go.

    Who's the ambiguity good for?

    --
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-22 02:01    [W:4.856 / U:0.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site