Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757395AbXFNWpp (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:45:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752203AbXFNWph (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:45:37 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:45829 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751108AbXFNWpg (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:45:36 -0400 To: "Chris Friesen" Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Paul Mundt , Linus Torvalds , Lennart Sorensen , 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: <20070614073232.GB22543@linux-sh.org> <200706141617.46734.dhazelton@enter.net> <4671B734.1040401@nortel.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:45:07 -0300 In-Reply-To: <4671B734.1040401@nortel.com> (Chris Friesen's message of "Thu\, 14 Jun 2007 15\:46\:28 -0600") 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: 1664 Lines: 45 On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >>> *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to >>> everyone - just to those that get the binaries. >> Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus' >> theory of tit-for-tat falls apart. > Nope. > case 1: Upstream provides source, tivo modifies and distributes it > (to their customers). > case 2: tivo provides source, end user modifies and distributes it > (possibly to their customers, maybe to friends, possibly even to > upstream). > See? Tit for tat. case 2': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes the hardware won't let him and gives up Where's the payback, or the payforward? And then, tit-for-tat is about equivalent retaliation, an eye for an eye. Where's the retaliation here? If GPLv2 were tit-for-tat, if someone invents artifices to prevent the user from making the changes the user wants on the software, wouldn't it be "equivalent retaliation" to prevent the perpetrator from making the changes it wants on the software? -- 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/