From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753323AbXFVAbh (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:31:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751423AbXFVAba (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:31:30 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:3828 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751270AbXFVAb3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:31:29 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:31:15 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:31:54 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:31:54 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Now, if you guys can't recognize a goodwill gesture when you see one, > and prefer to live in the paranoid beliefs that "those evil FSFers are > trying to force me into a situation in which they'll then be able to > steal my code", that's really up to you. Don't try to shift the blame > of your decisions onto the FSF. > Hey, but that was precisely what I was suggesting! Except that it > wasn't with GPLv2 alone, because this doesn't work. Each copyleft > license insists that it be *the* license. So, in order to be able to > combine two copyleft licenses, you need mutual compatibility > provisions in both. Which is what I was proposing. It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their contributions to it don't want people to create derivative works of their works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the reason they're not willing to adopt GPLv3. (They want people who receive derivative works of their programs to get all the GPLv2 rights, not just some of them.) I don't see any compromise that means that people don't get all the rights to Linux that the GPLv2 grants as working. DS