Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 continued…

Read the GPL license before you argue with Linus. He is not stupid so he can predict his actions. Who is the owner of the individual bits of the Kernel? Is the proprietary kernel module from Nvidia a derived work or not? By US courts distributing is not about downloading but about making the download available! Interesting, should you lock out bad uses? Linus is nitpicking and pointing out his role as “Primus inter Pares“. Caveat Emptor. Quote: “So the very *definition* of the word “Program” is indeed limited by the notion of “derived work” – as defined by copyright law, and NOT the GPLv2.”

GPLv2 vs GPLv3, an open Discussion

Linus says it all in his posts today. See here as an example. It is interesting to see how he argues about GIT, GPLv2 and merging. Linus continues here with his “Tit-for-Tat” argument. An obviously Linus for sure it not confused! Linus also likes the term Open Source more than the term Free Software. And obviously the Future is about “Open Content”. Additional permission in GPLv3 make no sense to Linus. Here there is some more insight (and this one is actually quite inspiring) why Linus chose GPLv2 and why the DNA of Linux is most important, more important then the individual. And now obviously Linus is grumped up. This one is about Dual-Lincensing. Obviously GPLv2v is more free then GPLv3. Linus actually likes Tivo, because they showed good manners in the first place. Why 160-bit SHA1 of a binary should not be made a “derived work” of that software. Linux is obviously and eco-system where the individual only succeeds if everybody succeeds. Last but not least for the day: Idetifying the “correct” binary.