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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:

> Now the FSF is coming along and being Darth Vader: "I am altering
> the bargain.  Pray I don't alter it any further."

1) it can't possibly do that.  the Linux license is something that
only the Linux developers can decide.

2) I don't know how the FSF is approaching the Linux developers, but
what I've been personally trying to do in this infinite thread was
mainly to set the record straight that v3 did not change the spirit of
the license, like some have claimed.

3) Another thing I've tried to do was to try to figure out why Linux
developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals.  I
must admit I failed.  The presented reasons don't seem to distinguish
v2 from v3 to me, or rather make v3 sound better.

It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without
achieving any of my goals.  I hope it was at least useful or
enlightening to some.

I'll now try to step out of the discussion, but I guess I'm just as
addicted to flames.  I don't see that it's getting anywhere, and I
don't particularly enjoy the name calling.  And then, I was politely
invited to go away...

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}