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

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the 
> > license, has absolutely *ZERO* bearing.
> 
> That's not true. Again, ianal, etc etc, but:
> 
> "Intent" *does* matter, and if you wrote down the intent at the time 
> you entered some legal agreement, that actually also has non-zero 
> bearing (as it can be used to _show_ intent more clearly than claiming 
> fifteen years later "but, your honour, I _intended_ to do something 
> else").

yeah. What comes up periodically in GPLv3 discussions as 'proof' of what 
the GPL means are totally detached statements of the FSF and of RMS, 
often written a decade _after_ the GPL has been chosen for a license of 
the Linux kernel. (the whole anti-Tivo line was invented well after the 
fact.) And those statements have little bearing on the interpretation of 
the license of GPL-ed works. (unless, of course, the author of a GPL-ed 
work agrees with those statements and intends them to be his 
interpretation of the license.)

	Ingo
-
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/