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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-15T23:10:09Z

On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in the spirit (that
>> >> refers to free software, bringing in the free software definition), is
>> >> the notion of protecting users' freedoms, among them the freeom #0, to
>> >> run the software for any purpose.
>> >
>> > And where in GPLv2 is "Freedom #0"?
>>
>> It may sound like thin evidence for someone arriving from Venus today,
>> but the preamble talks about "free software", some passages clearly
>> imply that software under this license is "free software", the license
>> is published by the Free Software Foundation, and the Free Software
>> Foundation has a published definition of Free Software that
>> establishes the 4 freedoms.

> And that doesn't matter.

Doens't matter for what?

To indicate what the Linux copyright holders meant? Sure it doesn't.
I never claimed it did.

To indicate what the authors of the GPL meant? To indicate the spirit
of the license they wrote? Yes, it matters a lot.

And the latter is what my participation here is all about: to show
that the spirit didn't change at all.

Until you acknowledge and understand this, I should refrain from
answering your other postings.

--
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}