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

Tim Post
2007-06-17T17:49:55Z

On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 05:42 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> Which shows you don't understand the notion of "spirit of license" (as
> opposed to intent of licensing, which I AFAIK invented today to try to
> dispell this confusion), and that the fact that the letter of the
> license doesn't have bearing about the intent of the author of the
> license, which is what the spirit of the license is about.
>
> > how about just simply admitting that you were wrong about this,
>
> I'm not. You are. Really. Until you understand the difference
> between "letter of license", "intent of licensor" and "spirit of
> license", you won't be able to understand this.

I just can't stand this anymore.

Might I submit that nobody can be wrong in a hypothetical? The chances
of the kernel changing to GPL v3 are the same as fort knox being ripped
off. IM GLAD! This means I can continue to merge.

Folks I will summarize myself one last time and stop disrupting your
list. I (personally) think enough time has been taken from productivity
and I'm becoming awfully concerned about the integrity of Alexandre's
ass. He's not here to irritate you, he's here to do what he thinks is
right. I admire him for that considering the adversity.

(its not a mantra, you can keep reading, I promise!)

If I found advantage in a bug In Linux, and you fixed it, I have a
choice to not apply the patch so that the bug remains useful to me.

The FSF found needs to produce another license to serve all of the
people who have interest in the FSF. This does not mean you need to
*apply* it. Its there if you want it, but its up to you.

Just as I told Linus, This is a kernel, not *&$(*# sed, and its a
decision I'm happy was not taken lightly.

NOBODY should be influencing you with what you do with your
contributions!! Make up your own minds in your own ways or have fun in
the parrot cage where you sit in your own shit until someone else cleans
it up. Who likes that?

I am asking as strongly as one can ask, *please* put this to bed.
Continuing at this point can serve no useful purpose and everyone
involved shares a common intent to be useful! Can we agree on that
spirit?

Opinions have been expressed over, and over and over again. Everyone
knows what everyone thinks.

We're all doing more harm than good. Who hates waste? I do.

Best,
--Tim