Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "I'd be a total moron to relicense the kernel under what I believe is a worse license"

[Alexander Terekhov]

I'm almost inclined to donate some EUROs to RMS/FSF and Eben's "law firm" 
SFLC for all that fun... <chuckles>

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > > In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy),
> > > and you cannot modify that copy that you got.
> >
> > And Red Hat can't either.  I thought that was quite obvious.
> 
> That's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
> 
> There is no language in the GPLv2 (only in the GPLv3 drafts) about "same
> upgradability as third parties".
> 
> You're arguing a point that DOES NOT EXIST in the GPLv2.
> 
> The GPLv2 talks about specific rights, like the ability to make changes
> and distribute things, and says that you have to give downstream all those
> same rights.
> 
> And I've pointed out to you (now about five times) that those rights
> CANNOT be able "in-place", since even Red Hat does not actually give you
> the right to do in-place modification of the software they sell.
> 
> > The 'passing on the rights you have' makes it an issue.
> 
> No. It does not.
> 
> I have extra rights as a copyright holder, and that "the rights you have"
> are as they pertain to the software under the GPLv2, not as it pertains to
> the physical device, or outside the GPLv2.
> 
> For example, for any code that I have full copyright over, I have rights
> that you DO NOT HAVE! I have the right to re-license it under some other
> license. The fact that I pass on a copy of the software to you under the
> GPLv2 does *not* give you those rights, but that's not even what the GPLv2
> asks for!
> 
> The GPLv2, when it talks about "passing on the rights", talks about the
> rights you got *per*the*GPLv2*.
> 
> Any other reading is nonsensical, since the copyrigth owner *always* has
> more rights than a licensee! I legally literally *couldn't* pass over all
> the rights I have to my software! If you read the GPLv2 as meaning that I
> have to, you are mis-reading it. It's that simple.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not interested in continuing this flame war.
> 
> The fact is, the license for the kernel is the GPLv2. And I think it's a
> superior license. As such, I'd be a total moron to relicense the kernel
> under what I believe is a worse license.
> 
> So if you want to argue that I should re-license, you should argue that
> the GPLv3 is better. And quite frankly, you haven't.
> 
>                 Linus

regards,
alexander.

--
"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'