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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15T18:49:35Z

On Friday 15 June 2007 07:45:22 Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > And, as I've taken the time to explain to you, lacking any clear
> > statement, written at the exact same time as the license, a
>
> statement of
>
> > intent or spirit cannot have any real legal weight when the text of a
> > license is finally decided upon.
>
> Fortunately the Law recognizes humans are not computers, natural
> langage is not unambiguous binary code, so statements of intent *have*
> legal value when a legal text is open to interpretations.
>
> That's why ten-line law paragraphs are published with the hundreds of
> pages of parliamentary discussions on them, which the judge will
> consider if there's any doubt in his mind.

You've just made my point for me.

Those "Hundreds of pages of parliamentary discussions" are *exactly* because
the intent of the law is being made *clear* at the same time the law is being
written. If the GPL is intended to cover situation like tivoization it isn't
made clear by the preamble at all - and the fact that the GPL, in version 2,
at least, *specifically* limits its scope to *THREE* "activities" also
creates a problem for your argument.

To quote: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

To try and claim that it is the *INTENT* or the *SPIRIT* of a piece of legal
text that contains such specific limiting text is idiotic. I may not be a
lawyer - hell, I may not have a degree of any kind - but I do know that a
clear and unambiguous statement like that can't be argued to mean anything
different *without* twisting the meaning of - or giving extra meaning to -
some of the words.

DRH

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