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

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
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.

:-)

However, my argument is straight logic, nothing "circular" about it. :)
Replacing "X" in my logic path above with "tivoization" and "license"
with "GPLv3", as you've done, does produce a valid chain of logic.

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.

FWIW the Linux Kernel shouldn't be as homogeneous a population as it is. I'd
expect it with an FSF run project, because they require copyright assignment
in order to participate, but with a project like Linux, where everyone
maintains the copyright to their contributions, should be a hell of a lot
less homogeneous than Linus' numbers make it seem.

<snip>
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)?

Actually, any generic "TiVO"-like hardware - whether it is tivoized or not.
Admittedly the numbers are significantly different for PC's (and other types
of general purpose computing devices).

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.

38ppm is a fairly small amount, regardless.

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.

You've been making the argument the entire time you've been arguing that
the "anti-tivoization" language in the GPLv3 is necessary. I think I'd rather
see a guaranteed increase of developers - even if it is only 10 - rather than
hoping that the potential pool of 38 actually follows through. Wouldn't you?

DRH

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... I'm not trying to force them to change to GPLv3. ... I don't _care_ whether it breaks spirit, etc. - it's a fundamentally bad ... the box, protect what they want to protect, use crypto-loop to prevent offline ... thanks to what you call anti-tivoization section. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisions are ... GPLv3, this is circular reasoning: ... the entire argument, and keep disregarding essential parts, disputing ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... If lost, ... developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 ... I think Linus, and other major developers ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisions are ... => developer has requirement for X in license, ... Software" developers (using the definition of the term "Free Software" ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... >> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 ... >> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is ... should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris ...
    (Linux-Kernel)