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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
>> four freedoms that the GPL was designed to respect and defend.

> The GPL is a software license, *independent* of that thing.

One more time, I'm not talking about the license (the legal terms).
I'm talking about its spirit.  It's encoded in the preamble, that
refers to "free software", which can't possibly be defended as meaning
anything but what the FSF itself defined in the Free Software
Definition.

Is this some form of mental block that stops you from realizing that
the spirit of the license is pretty much all I've been talking about
here, and that I've already said that at least 20 times in this
thread?

Why do you insist in bringing the legal terms back into this
discussion about the spirit of the license?

What are you trying to accomplish, other than generating more
confusion and pretending that you have a strong point?

-- 
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}