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

Sean
2007-06-15T06:17:37Z

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:24:32 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> No. Linus and other Linux kernels might *want* to take other people's
> improvements, but thanks to Richard Stallman's choices for GPLv3, they
> can *not* legally take other people's improvements without violating
> the GPLv3 license. That's not their fault, it's the fault of people
> who wrote the GPLv3 license, promulgated the GPLv3 license, and who is
> attempting to convince everyone that the GPLv3 license is the only
> valid license for Right Thinking FSF automatons to use.
>
> There are plenty of things that I might *want* to do, that I am
> legally prohibited from doing. that doesn't change the fact that I
> might want to do it. The fact that GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2
> is a tragedy, in the Greek sense.

The _exact_ same arguments are made against the GPLv2 by the BSD folks.

Given that many people here defend the GPLv2 over BSD, it's ironic
the tone and level of vitriol shown against the v3 and such a
willingness to use the same arguments the BSD folks use against v2.

Both v2 and v3 enforce some restrictions that people who want to
participate must obey. And _yes_ I acknowledge that v3 has _more_
restrictions. But then, v2 has more restrictions than BSD and we're
more or less happy with that, aren't we? In fact, many of us
believe it's a virtue that Linux has a more restrictive license
than that of the BSD's.

While this isn't an argument that we should happily accept more
restrictions, hopefully it will put things in a cheerier perspective.
We're not talking about a fundamental disagreement (ie. no restrictions
versus any restrictions); we're simply talking about _degree_ of
restriction.

There's no problem with people voicing honest disagreement with the v3,
but please lighten up a bit on FSF bashing and the Greek tragedy talk.

Sean.