Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757287AbXFNXLK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:11:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754112AbXFNXK6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:10:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:54887 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752799AbXFNXK5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:10:57 -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 20:09:29 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu\, 14 Jun 2007 15\:45\:30 -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: 2577 Lines: 68 On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 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. > Why do you bother sending out emails that just show that you cannot read > or understand? Because I can't divine what's in your mind, and if you don't make the points you want to make clear, I may very well fail to understand. > I want not just the code *I* write to be freely available. I want the > modifications that others release that are based on my code to be freely > available too! With the exception of those who choose not to distribute their changes. Or who choose to distribute their changes to people who are not willing to share them with you. Fair enough. > That's what the whole "tit-for-tat" thing was all about! > Doyou even understand what "tit-for-tat" means? Yes. I even wrote an article about that. http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite > Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? Yes. It's there in the article as well. The difference is basically in attitude. Tit-for-tat is adversarial (equivalent retaliation), whereas Quid pro quo is cooperative (a favor for a favor). > Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years. Yup, I remember that. >> > 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. > You are living in some alternate world. The GPLv2 gives me exactly > what I looked for. And in what sense the GPLv3 anti-Tivoization clause doesn't? In what sense does it give you *less* of what you want? -- 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/