From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765348AbXF1TPB (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:15:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762529AbXF1TOy (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:14:54 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:4251 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760162AbXF1TOx (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:14:53 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:13:49 -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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:13:51 -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, 28 Jun 2007 12:13:52 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexandre Oliva write: > > The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear > > whether it > > means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of > > construction is that "may" means permission, unless there's some clear > > indication to the contrary. The "may"s in sections one and two are > > permisssion against a claim of copyright enfrocement. The "further > > restriction" clause is, at it states, only on the exercise of *rights* > > (which I think means those rights licensed to you under copyright law, > > namely the right of distribution and copying). > ... and modification and, depending on the jurisdiction, execution. Modification, yes. Execution, well, if the rules of a jurisdiction are insane, you will get insane results from almost any contract. Fortunately, the GPL makes it clear that execution is unrestricted for GPL'd works, but does not style this as a GPL right. One would hope that jurisidictions that have such strange rules would interpret the GPL to effect the same result under their laws as was intended under the laws the GPL was written with respect to, to the extent possible. Treating ordinary use as a copyright privilege leads to nonsensical results no matter what you do. For example, you get that I can drop copies of my poem from an airplane and then sue anyone who reads it. DS