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

On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.

The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.

Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisions are
*the* objectionable issue about GPLv3 for those of you who dislike
GPLv3, this is circular reasoning:

anti-tivoization is bad
=> we reject licenses with it
=> there are fewer developers willing to develop with such licenses
=> anti-tivoization is bad

The logic is close to:

=> License forbids X
=> developer has requirement for X in license, can't add to project
=> License forbidding X is bad

I'm not sure it was clear that '=>' was meant as logical implication.
Read it as "therefore".

It's actually funny that what your inference sequence (in spite of the
missing initial operand) rings so true about my impressions about some
of the reactions I'm getting here.

GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization
is bad.

:-)

I haven't really seen a single one. Last I did the statistic, I asked the
top ~25-30 kernel developers about their opinion. NOT A SINGLE ONE
preferred the GPLv3.

Wow, that's a really big sample among all Free Software and Open
Source developers out there. And not even a little bit biased at
that.

Sorry that I missed the <irony> markers.

Yes, the sample could be considered "biased" - jst as a sample taken
among the GCC developers could be considered "biased" towards the
other end of the spectrum.

FWIW, I haven't taken such a sample, because I know my network of
contacts would likely make it statistically useless. I'd not try to
make an argument based on that.

So I have actual *numbers* on my side. What do you have, except for a
history of not actually understanding my arguments?

Which is worse, not understanding or repeatedly snipping out and
addressing unrelated points?

In other words - you've done the same and more.

I've honestly tried not to. I believe Linus has, too. Many of us
have talked past each other, a lot.

That was actually the point behind breaking up the argument in small
pieces.

If Linus hadn't got the whole argument, a number of times, before,
this might be described as dishonest, but since he did, and he can
refer back to those messages, he can know where I'm going.

Dispute this:

non-tivoized hardware => users can scratch their itches => more
contributions from these users

tivoized hardware => users can't scratch their itches => fewer
contributions from these users

Linus doesn't have to.

Of course he doesn't. But he will. Because he's always right, and he
wants to show that. That this is a bait and he knows it won't stop
him. He knows there's no hook, because he knows where I'm going with
the argument. But it's going to be interesting to watch.

Statistically the number of people that will even think of modifying
the code running on a "tivoized" device is minute

Wait a minute, these figures you made up are for the tivoized hardware
(no changes allowed to the GPLed software in it), or for the
non-tivoized hardware (changes allowed to the GPLed software in it)?

those who will contribute them back: 38 (25%)

Regardless of what you meant, this is 38 developers *on top* of
however many the company pays to work on that, unless you're jumping
the gun and spoiling the multi-part argument.

What you are arguing is that people should abandon

I'm not arguing any such thing. Where's any such argument above?

At this point, I'm only comparing a tivoized device with a
non-tivoized device. Nothing but it.

--
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wasting our Freedom
    ... Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. ... removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put ... You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. ... between GPL and BSD developers. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Wasting our Freedom
    ... removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put ... not accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send ... You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. ... It's known that the patches are bad, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PHP] Requested PHP apps / sites
    ... Something open and non-contractual in the spirit ... existing user-management framework (allowed by license) or write your ... So instead of free code from me or other developers, ... Except I was hoping that the end users of the app or site would be the think tank, ...
    (php.general)
  • Re: [PHP] Requested PHP apps / sites
    ... development requests. ... Something open and non-contractual in the spirit ... existing user-management framework (allowed by license) or write your ... So instead of free code from me or other developers, ...
    (php.general)
  • [Full-disclosure] [HAT-SQUAD] SafeNet Sentinel LM, UDP License Manager Exploit
    ... allowing application developers to implement multiple pre-built license ... models with a single software development integration effort. ... sell or deliver multiple license types simply by changing the license file ...
    (Full-Disclosure)