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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15T00:11:21Z

On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:42:44 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as
> >> > you see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for
> >> > me to do with as I see fit, under the same license I gave you source
> >> > code.
> >> >
> >> > How hard is that to accept?
> >>
> >> Forgive me if I find this a bit hard, because that's *not* what the
> >> GPL says.
> >
> > What part of the word "expect" did you not understand?
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/24/246
>
> It asks everybody - regardless of circumstance - for the same thing.
> It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to
> be given back to the common good. You can use the end result any
> way you want (and if you want to use it for "bad" things, be my
> guest), but we ask the same exact thing of everybody - give your
> modifications back.
>
> > And whats your point here anyway?
>
> The the GPL doesn't do that. It encourages that. But what it asks
> for is respect for the freedoms it defends WRT the software licensed
> under it.

Logical fallacy. The two statements are semantically equivalent, and the draw
and allure of "Open Source" is that the software continually gets better at
doing its job, grows more features, etc... *ALL* because the modifications
*DO* get "given back".

Because it is *VERY* hard to keep a modification *PRIVATE* and avoid
the "distribution" clauses of the GPL the belief that it "doesn't require
giving changes back" is technically and literally true, but is false in
practice.

DRH

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.