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

[Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@t-online.de>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't 
>> *agree* on the "spirit".
> 
> They don't have to.
> 
> Just like nobody but you can tell why you chose the GPLv2, nobody but
> RMS can tell why he wrote the GPL.  And the intent behind writing the
> GPL is what defines its spirit.

Given that a number of people who don't buy into FSF ideology (let's
call them "open source proponents" to contrast them with the "free
software people") have concluded that the GPLv2 achieves their personal
goals, and have chosen the GPLv2 as the license for their projects, I'd
argue that the spirit that is embodied in the GPLv2 is actually a larger
thing than what the FSF intended, and more inclusive.

When these same people now disagree with the GPLv3, it indicates that
something has been lost, and the spirit of the _license_ has changed.
The _intention_ behind writing the license may or may not have been the
same (who can tell, after 20-odd years?), but this is separate from the
spirit embodied in the license itself - the latter has, in my mind
anyway, clearly been changed.  You might prefer to say "clarified", but
it comes down to the same thing.

But personally, I find the discussion about whether the spirit changed
or not somewhat beside the point and not very interesting.  What's
really going to cause problems is the fact that the actual wording took
a turn for the worse.


Bernd