Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:14, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
It seems so.

But it has this upgrade option, and one possible interpretation of

^^

Linus' comment is "no, it doesn't have this update option".

It? What "it"?
I don't get it. If you say the licence is v2 only, then how can it have
options?

By section 9. The license is v2, and basically allows to update the
license - and it makes this a choice of the user (who also has rights to
change stuff and redistribute it).

If I use GPL as license, I'm under "GPL regime", i.e. the terms of the
GPL apply.

First, the local and international laws apply. It's not like selling your
soul to the devil.

Contract law means that first and foremost the contract itself defines the
rules, and only if it is not or contradicts the law, the law jumps in. The
GPL is not really a contract, it's a license, but the law is not much
different here, especially once you accept the GPL. If you put your code
under GPL, the text in the GPL is the deal. The law is only the framework
under which the deal works.

If you accept the M$ EULA, international law still applies, yet you are
selling your soul to the devil (because the EULA sais so).

Now, I may rewrite those few "GPLv2 only" files, and
then I have a GPLv2-or later compatible linux-some.version-bp kernel.

Sure, you can rewrite all non "GPLv2 or later" code and have v3 Linux.
The problem is you think only "few" files are v2.

Because only few files say so, and they must say what they mean, because GPL
is rather clear that if you put a file which doesn't say which version
applies under GPL, it's "any GPL". Why is it so difficult to grok section 9
of the current GPLv2, which people claim is well understood?

A number of kernel hacker deliberately want their work under GPLv2 only
(like Al Viro), and they are fully entitled to do that - but they must
announce it in a propper place (not lkml or lwn.org), and a comment in
COPYING signed by Linus Torvalds doesn't seem to be propper to me,
especially when the GPLv2 gives a procedure how to do it (look for the
appendix: "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs").

There are good reasons to follow the advice there, and those who did follow
the advice in the Linux kernel in the vast majority said "GPLv2 or later".
Verbatim copy without understanding? Or is it rather that the other people
who didn't follow the advice didn't read the GPL, and therefore understand
it even less ;-)?

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

Attachment: pgpAYcaM73pqF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Relevant Pages

  • My Second post! Re: There can only be one GPL!!!
    ... Second, as for license, try using GPL version 1. ... And Microsoft is big enough to know the LAW. ... What contract LAW states is that all programs ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: There can only be one GPL!!!
    ... active GPL. ... That license applies no matter that someone else releases their ... that accept contract law. ... What contract LAW states is that all programs ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: GtkAda License Question
    ... since that would render all GPL licensing ... Also I'd like to ask "which law"? ... the default would be "no rights". ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
    ... verdict was rendered because that courts decision would give the FOSS ... We would after 16+ years of the GPL, ... law that at present, only exists in Germany. ... "GPL is a creature of copyright law" lost in court, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
    ... It is black and white in copyright law and the GPL. ... The /whole point/ of the GPL is to funnel contributions back. ... no warranty... ... That's a straightforward license of modification and distribution ...
    (Linux-Kernel)