[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Viro: "Permission denied"

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Viro: "Permission denied"
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:09:03 +0200


Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions
> > about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all.
> >
> > If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with
> > code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use
> > Linux code, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux code to use GPLv3
> > projects.  That's because GPLv2 would still demand all code to be
> > licensed under GPLv2, and GPLv3 wouldn't permit this.
> >
> > However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
> > GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
> > compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
> > with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some condition
> > if you will), then:
> >
> > - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> .. and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions.  No.
> > - GPLv3 projects could use code from Linux
> Oh, rapture!  How could one object against such a glorious outcome?
> > - each copyright holder would still get to enforce the terms s/he
> >   chose for his/her own code
> .. except for that pesky "no added restrictions" part, but hey, who
> cares?
> > If you were to permit compatibility with GPLv3+ (rather than GPLv3),
> > would you constrain it?  Would something like:
> >
> >   as long as the later version grants each licensee the same
> >   permissions as GPLv2, except for constraining permissions that would
> >   enable one licensee to deny other licensees the exercise of the
> >   permissions granted by both licenses
> .. because it's For The Benefit Of User Freedoms!!!
> No.  Permission denied.  And I don't know of any suckers who would buy that
> and hadn't been already hooked by FSF peddlers already.
> If somebody wants to dual-license their code, they can do it just fine.
> If somebody wants to dual-license *others* code, they can go and play
> with themselves until they reach RMS-level clarity of vision.
> -


"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."

        -- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply'

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]