Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754178AbXFNSDn (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:03:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750942AbXFNSDc (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:03:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44938 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753159AbXFNSD3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:03:29 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Adrian Bunk , Daniel Hazelton , Alan Cox , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706131946.15714.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614004419.GL3588@stusta.de> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:01:53 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu\, 14 Jun 2007 08\:34\:22 -0700 \(PDT\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3883 Lines: 104 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about >> it. >> >> When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have >> a right to modify that copy. > Umm. I notice how you must have known how *idiotic* your response was, > because you snipped away the part where I talked about Red Haty > distributing CD-ROM's. > 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. >> > See any parallels here? Any parallel to a CD-ROM distribution, or a Tivo >> > distribution? >> Yes. You see how TiVO is different? It is modifyable, and I actually >> receive the copy that TiVO can still modify, but I can't. > You keep on harping on that "modifyable", but no-where in the GPLv2 is > that an issue. I claim that it *cannot* be an issue, since CD's are > obviously ok. The 'passing on the rights you have' makes it an issue. > You cannot use that as an argument that the GPLv3 didn't change things, Compare the preambles of v2 and v3 and you'll understand why the argument is sound, and not circular. > Those people who have argued for using the BSD license, btw, argued so in > the name of "freedom". But individual freedom, rather than community freedom. Think local vs global optimization. > If so, why the hell do you think _you_ are right? Because, like you, I'm always right, even though not everyone agrees with that assessment? ;-P :-D > - do you admit that the GPLv3 is a new license that does new and > different things? Yes, of course. The new legal terms are answers to new threats to the freedoms depicted in the preamble, that didn't exist or hadn't been thought of by the time GPLv2 was published. > - do you admit that I chose the GPLv2, and have argued that I chose it > because I understood what it said? Yes. > - do you admit that authors have the right to choose their own licenses? Within the boundaries of ethics and morals, yes. > - if you answered "yes" to all the above questions, HOW THE HELL can you > call me confused, and argue against me when I say that the GPLv2 is a > better license? It wasn't your choice. The thing is I'm not arguing that point. I'm disputing that there was a change in the spirit of the license between v2 and v3. Heck, a mere 48 hours ago you couldn't even tell the spirit from the legal terms. I still think v3 will serve better any Free Software community, because it will push away the abusers that contribute little, or turn them into cooperative or at least harmless participants, that further enable the active participation of their downstream users. This would enable wider participation under the same 'tit-for-tat' conditions that you attribute to GPLv2. It appears to me that the only significant point of contention remaining is the issue of Tivoization. If you feel so strongly about permitting Tivoization, even though it denies the freedoms that the original spirit of the license you chose says they are entitled to have, you can make this provision by means of an additional permission for that, on top of GPLv3, and be done with it. > It really is that easy. Yes, indeed. -- 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/