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

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > * Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> >> >> >> It is also clear, thanks to language directly in the GPLv2 
> >> >> >> itself, that there is no "intent" of the license to cover 
> >> >> >> that situation.
> 
> >> >> You're again confusing legal terms with the intent.  The legal 
> >> >> terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along 
> >> >> with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even better 
> >> >> job at that.
> 
> >> > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the 
> >> > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing. Just as it is not the 
> >> > *intent* of RMS, the FSF or *ANY* person (or legal entity) that had 
> >> > a hand in crafting the GPLv2 or GPLv3 which is looked at when 
> >> > determining the "intent" of the license. It is the intent of the 
> >> > person and/or "legal entity" that has placed their work under said 
> >> > license.
> 
> >> No disagreement.  You keep forgetting that I'm not here to say what 
> >> Linux licensing means or doesn't mean.
> 
> > it is _you_ forgetting to read what you wrote just 1 mail ago above. 
> > _Read_ it:
> 
> >   "The legal terms provide an indication of the intent, but the 
> >    preamble, along with the free software definition it alludes to, do 
> >    an even better job at that.".

[...]

> Now, the spirit of the GPL, the intent behind its design, is something 
> that may be entirely different.  And when I say that GPLv3 didn't 
> change the spirit of the GPL, I'm saying that from the perspective of 
> someone who understands very deeply the philosphy and motivations 
> behind it.

why do you start babbling about the GPLv3 when the false statement you 
made was about the GPLv2 - as visible _very_ clearly in the first quote 
above??  Again, as a reminder, this point was presented to you (see the 
quotes above), in the discussion about whether the Tivo is fine by the 
GPLv2 or not:

' It is also clear, thanks to language directly in the GPLv2
  itself, that there is no "intent" of the license to cover that
  situation. '

to which you replied with this falsehood:

' You're again confusing legal terms with the intent.  The legal
  terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, 
  along with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even 
  better job at that. '

and you have simply been pointed out that what you say is trivially 
false - the simple legal fact is that the GPLv2 does not "embedd" more 
than what is its letter and, to the lesser extent that letter may be 
ambigious, what Linus' (and other copyright holders') intent is and was. 
Not RMS's external intentions or the "free software definition" you 
mention.

how about just simply admitting that you were wrong about this, instead 
of putting up (and beating down) yet another non-sequitor strawman 
argument? Is that really that hard and embarrasing to do? I've yet to 
see a _single_ instance of you admitting in this thread that "oops, it 
seems i was really wrong about this point. Sorry.". Or are you one of 
those perfect humans who are never wrong? ;-)

	Ingo