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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 13, 2007, lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:

> I believe a number of people don't think the GPL v3 is in the same
> spirit as the GPL v2.  I guess it comes down to what people thought the
> spirit of the GPL v2 was.

So let's go back to the preamble, that provides motivations and some
guidance as to the interpretation of the legal text (i.e., the spirit
of the license):

  [...] the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your
  freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software
  is free for all its users. [...]

  [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
  the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
  this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get
  it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of
  it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
  anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
  rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities
  for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify
  it.

  [...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
  for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have


Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
this spirit?

-- 
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}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/