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

From: Rob Landley
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 21:57:23 EST

On Friday 15 June 2007 18:59:14 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So it's true: the GPL just gives you rights, and without it you have no
> rights (other than fair use ones etc), and blah blah. But the distinction
> between "license" vs "contract" really isn't a very important one in any
> case.

Er, copyright law is federal, contract law is generally state level? So not
only does contract law vary a lot more by jurisdiction, but it's enforced by
different courts than suits over copyright? (You'll notice the GPL doesn't
say which state law holds sway. If it was a contract this would be kind of

Also, in addition to the "exchange of value" bit there's "privity of contract"
and "informed consent" when dealing with contract, which are cans of worms
which can be avoided by Not Going There (tm)...

(These were largeish issues in the SCO vs Novell case, involving lots of
motions in Utah detailed blow-by-blow on Groklaw...)

"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at