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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-19T02:01:15Z

On Jun 18, 2007, Joshua David Williams <yurimxpxman.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Open Source Definition

... derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, engineered to
reflect the Free Software definition ...

> wrote:

>> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

>> Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked
>> with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work,
>> not any software with which they are merely distributed.

> The way I understand it, programs licensed under the GPLv3 are *not* open
> source software. FSF is so caught up in their own agenda that they're
> forgetting the whole point - the freedom of choice.

Err... Excuse me? Whole point for whom?

Free Software is not about freedom of choice. That's an OSI slogan
for "if you like, you can shoot your own foot, regardless of whether
the shrapnel hurts people around you".
http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/139#1

Free Software is about respect for the four freedoms.

I don't think the FSF is at all concerned whether GPLv3 complies with
the OSD. They couldn't care less. It was OSI that tried to create a
definition that matched exactly the meaning of the Free Software
definition under "more objective criteria". We already know they
failed, since the Reciprocal Public License is accepted as an OSS
license, but it's a non-Free Software license. There may be other
examples.

That said, since a number of people already understand the GPLv2
prohibits tivoization, your argument means that either the comment in
the OSD is wrong, and GPLv2 already fails to match the OSD, or that
GPLv3 complies with it in just the same way.

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}