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

[Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> In other words, we're just *much* better off with a friendly license and 
> not trying to force people to choose sides, than with the rabid idealism 
> that was - and still is - the FSF. The FSF always makes for this horrible 
> "you're with us, or you're against us" black-and-white mentality, where 
> there are "evil" companies (Tivo) and "good" companies (although I dunno 
> if the FSF really sees anybody as truly "good").

Linus,

If you really believe that then why didn't you choose a BSD license
for Linux?  You didn't say "completely free, no restrictions attached,
people will follow because they'll see it's best, we just won't buy
products that use Linux in a way with which we disagree".

Instead you chose a license which enforced the so called tit-for-tat
policy you think is fair.  But people who prefer the BSD license may
think you're a moron for forcing your political agenda (ie. tit-for-tat)
on users of your code.  The point of all that being, you _do_ believe
in enforcing restrictions or you wouldn't like the GPL v2.

So you draw the line of "fairness" and belief that people will
do-the-right-thing somewhere short of the BSD license.  Why is it
so hard then to accept that the FSF draws the line short of the
GPLv2 after having gained practical experience with it
since its release?

You can argue till the cows come home the belief that _your_
restrictions are more fair, moral and reasonable than theirs.
But at the end of the day it's all just a matter of opinion about
what constitutes fair and reasonable.  You think its a fair trade
that you get code back, the FSF think its fair that people can hack
and run the code anywhere its used..  It all comes down to the
author of the code getting to attach whatever restrictions they
choose.

Sean