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

Linus Torvalds
2007-06-15T15:30:22Z

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>
> Ah no, it's their fault. The GPLv2 always was clear that there will be some
> future releases of the GPL, and that you should keep "upgrading" possible.

No. It is clear that you have the *option* of keep upgrading, but it is
also equally clear that Linux has always decided *not* to exercise that
option, exactly because I liked the GPLv2, not some "future upgrade".

I decided that long before I saw the GPLv3.

And I'm surprised by people who wonder why I did that.

I'm _intelligent_, dammit. That means that I can foresee the future to
some degree, at least in the limited sense of what is a likely outcome of
my actions.

Why are people surprised by the fact that I have foresight? I may be known
for being an impolite bastard, but quite frankly, anybody who thinks I'm a
_stupid_ impolite bastard must be missing a page.

You can disagree with my opinions. You can call me obstinate, impolite,
and opinionated. But quite frankly, very few people have ever found me
*stupid*.

So give me that - I'm not stupid. That means that I actually *can* predict
the future to some fuzzy degree, and that people really should *not* be
surprised by the fact that I never let the FSF control my choice of
license.

> The GPLv2 tries hard to be compatible with any further versions of the GPL
> as possible, by allowing people to choose which license you take, and by
> making sure that no man in the middle can restrict this choice. If people
> deliberately select to use "GPLv2 only", who's to blame?

There's no "blame". There's only credit.

Besides, you are wrong. The *default* for the GPLv2 in the presense of
license information is *not* "v2 or later"

In order to get "GPLv2 or later", you actually have to explicitly specify
it.

I just find it sad that so many people did that, often apparently just
because they didn't actually read or understand the license.

Linus