|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Michael Gerdau <mgd-AT-technosis.de>|
|| ||Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3|
|| ||Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:45:50 -0700 (PDT)|
|| ||Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton-AT-enter.net>,
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva-AT-redhat.com>,
Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-AT-csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
Greg KH <greg-AT-kroah.com>,
debian developer <debiandev-AT-gmail.com>,
Tarkan Erimer <tarkan-AT-netone.net.tr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>, mingo-AT-elte.hu|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view.
I'm sorry, but that's simply bullshit.
The GPLv2 does not state that you have to become a slave of rms and follow
him in all things, and agree with him. Really. You must have read some
other (perhaps unreleased early draft?) version.
The GPLv2 says what it says. Not what you (or rms) *wished* it says.
You don't enter into contracts and licenses based on wishes and intents.
That's just not how it works.
> > (b) The language in the preamble: "must give the recipients all the
> > rights that you have" means really *all* the rights and abilities!
> I always did imply a "within reason".
Your view is not relevant. The fact that the "preamble" is not the
"conditions" is what's relevant.
The preamble is explicitly stated to be *different* from the exact
conditions. It's not the real "terms of copying". It's there to explain,
it's not there to *be* the license.
It's explanatory, but the wording that actually *matters* is the "terms
And the fact that *you* can mentally add words to it when you read the
license (adding a "within reason") has absolutely no relevance
to post comments)