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

Ingo Molnar
2007-06-15T22:06:17Z

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the
> > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing.
>
> That's not true. Again, ianal, etc etc, but:
>
> "Intent" *does* matter, and if you wrote down the intent at the time
> you entered some legal agreement, that actually also has non-zero
> bearing (as it can be used to _show_ intent more clearly than claiming
> fifteen years later "but, your honour, I _intended_ to do something
> else").

yeah. What comes up periodically in GPLv3 discussions as 'proof' of what
the GPL means are totally detached statements of the FSF and of RMS,
often written a decade _after_ the GPL has been chosen for a license of
the Linux kernel. (the whole anti-Tivo line was invented well after the
fact.) And those statements have little bearing on the interpretation of
the license of GPL-ed works. (unless, of course, the author of a GPL-ed
work agrees with those statements and intends them to be his
interpretation of the license.)

Ingo