On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> 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. The spirit gives the intuition of "passing on all the rights". The legal terms have to be more careful about that, to avoid the very situation you're debating, so they state "you can't impose further restrictions on the exercise of the rights". Do you understand the difference? > For example, for any code that I have full copyright over, I have rights > that you DO NOT HAVE! No dispute about that, and this is irrelevant to this point. I've already responded and clarified this point 2 or 3 times in this thread. Do you need me to find a URL for you? It was in respose to Dmitri Torokhov. > 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. In fact, I haven't even tried. So far, I've merely been trying to show that it still follows the same spirit, dispelling the muth that it doesn't, and trying to understand why you think GPLv2 is so much better, which I think is related with tit-for-tat and retribution in kind. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
