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

Ingo Molnar
2007-06-15T21:58:01Z

* Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

> >> You're again confusing legal terms with the intent. The legal
> >> terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along
> >> with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better
> >> job at that.
>
> > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the
> > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing. Just as it is not the
> > *intent* of RMS, the FSF or *ANY* person (or legal entity) that had
> > a hand in crafting the GPLv2 or GPLv3 which is looked at when
> > determining the "intent" of the license. It is the intent of the
> > person and/or "legal entity" that has placed their work under said
> > license.
>
> No disagreement. You keep forgetting that I'm not here to say what
> Linux licensing means or doesn't mean.

it is _you_ forgetting to read what you wrote just 1 mail ago above.
_Read_ it:

"The legal terms provide an indication of the intent, but the
preamble, along with the free software definition it alludes to, do
an even better job at that.".

Your point was totally bogus, and you have been pointed out that your
point was bogus. And your answer - instead of admitting that you were
wrong once again (i'm not even asking you to apologize for wasting our
time) - to pretend that there is "no disagreement" and to patronize your
discussion partner with a "you keep forgetting ..." phrase and a
non-sequitor statement? How low can this discussion get? I'm truly
amazed ...

Ingo