Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756078AbXFNWdj (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:33:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752351AbXFNWda (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:33:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41998 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752134AbXFNWd3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:33:29 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Adrian Bunk , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, 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> <200706132140.13490.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614020827.GO3588@stusta.de> <200706132243.14651.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614025640.GQ3588@stusta.de> <9578.1181793617@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20070614152034.GS3588@stusta.de> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:31:52 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu\, 14 Jun 2007 14\:23\:38 -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: 1936 Lines: 47 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. Ok, the MIT license could get you that. Even public domain could. > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the > improvements back. GPL won't get you that. You want a non-Free Software license. It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the benefits of cooperation. But some players don't. > So given that background, which license do you _think_ I should have > chosen? I can't morally recommend a non-Free Software license. > And given that background, do you see why the GPLv2 is _still_ better than > the GPLv3? No. Honestly, I really don't. Even when I try and look at it from your perspective, that you described very beautifully in the rest of the message that I snipped, it's still a mistery to me why you think permitting Tivoization could possibly be advantageous to your project. What is it in the anti-Tivoization provision that gets you any less improvements back? If anything, I'd think that, by not permitting TiVO to prohibit users from running modified versions of your code that they don't authorize themselves, these users would do *more* than TiVO alone ever could, and if a fraction of them contributes something back, you're way better off. -- 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/