I'm almost inclined to donate some EUROs to RMS/FSF and Eben's "law firm" SFLC for all that fun... <chuckles>
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > > In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy), > > > and you cannot modify that copy that you got. > > > > And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was quite obvious. > > That's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT! > > There is no language in the GPLv2 (only in the GPLv3 drafts) about "same > upgradability as third parties". > > You're arguing a point that DOES NOT EXIST in the GPLv2. > > The GPLv2 talks about specific rights, like the ability to make changes > and distribute things, and says that you have to give downstream all those > same rights. > > And I've pointed out to you (now about five times) that those rights > CANNOT be able "in-place", since even Red Hat does not actually give you > the right to do in-place modification of the software they sell. > > > The 'passing on the rights you have' makes it an issue. > > No. It does not. > > I have extra rights as a copyright holder, and that "the rights you have" > are as they pertain to the software under the GPLv2, not as it pertains to > the physical device, or outside the GPLv2. > > For example, for any code that I have full copyright over, I have rights > that you DO NOT HAVE! I have the right to re-license it under some other > license. The fact that I pass on a copy of the software to you under the > GPLv2 does *not* give you those rights, but that's not even what the GPLv2 > asks for! > > The GPLv2, when it talks about "passing on the rights", talks about the > rights you got *per*the*GPLv2*. > > Any other reading is nonsensical, since the copyrigth owner *always* has > more rights than a licensee! I legally literally *couldn't* pass over all > the rights I have to my software! If you read the GPLv2 as meaning that I > have to, you are mis-reading it. It's that simple. > > Anyway, I'm not interested in continuing this flame war. > > The fact is, the license for the kernel is the GPLv2. And I think it's a > superior license. As such, I'd be a total moron to relicense the kernel > under what I believe is a worse license. > > So if you want to argue that I should re-license, you should argue that > the GPLv3 is better. And quite frankly, you haven't. > > Linus regards, alexander. -- "Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house, a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have to spend all your time making money to pay for them." -- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply' _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss