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

Linus Torvalds
2007-06-14T18:07:55Z

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes
> restrictions, that's ok

Sure. I think it's ok that Microsoft imposes restrictions too on the
software they create. It's *their* choice.

And I think it's ok for you to impose any restrictions (including the ones
in GPLv3) on the software *you* produce. It's your choice.

> but when others want to find ways to stop it, then it's not. *Now* I'm
> confused ;-)

You are indeed totally confused.

It's *ok* to impose restrictions on the stuff you create. Everybody has a
different world-view, and for some it's about making money, for some it's
about something else, and some don't want any restrictions at all.

For me, the GPLv2 was the license I liked. I didn't like the BSD license,
so I didn't choose it. I don't like a license that restricts hardware, so
I didn't choose that.

And I *still* don't choose that.

See? I think the GPLv3 is a *much* inferior license to the GPLv2. It's
better than its drafts were, but it's still doing things I disagree with.

So tell me, why do you think I'm confused about the GPLv3? Why do you
think I should have said "GPLv2 or anything else the FSF comes up with"?

So the only thing I want you to say is:

(a) Linus knows what he is doing, and isn't actually confused.

and

(b) It was my right to use the license of my choice for a project that I
started.

and

(c) I have the right to see the difference between the GPLv2 and v3, and
think that the GPLv3 is the inferior license.

Comprende? MY CHOICE. Not the FSF's. Not yours. Not anybody elses.

Linus