Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753370AbXFOFpE (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:45:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751832AbXFOFoz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:44:55 -0400 Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50303 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750946AbXFOFoy (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:44:54 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Alexandre Oliva Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:44:39 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Chris Friesen , Paul Mundt , Lennart Sorensen , Greg KH , debian developer , "david@lang.hm" , Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706150144.39652.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4110 Lines: 91 On Friday 15 June 2007 00:14:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes > >> the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up > > > > So you're blaming Tivo for the fact that your end user was a lazy bum and > > wanted to take advantage of somebody elses hard work without permission? > > -ENONSEQUITUR > > > Quite frankly, I know who the bad guy in that scenario is, and it ain't > > Tivo. It's your lazy bum, that thought he would just take what Tivo did, > > sign the contract, and then not follow it. And just because the box > > _contained_ some piece of free software, that lazy bum suddenly has all > > those rights? > > Yes, because the software license that TiVo signed up for says that > TiVo must pass on certain rights and not impose any further > restrictions. They don't add any restrictions that don't already exist. As stated in section 0 of the GPLv2 the scope of the license is "copying, distributing and modification". > And all that because TiVo wanted to use kernel and userland that were > readily available, and at no cost other than respecting others' > freedoms, while at that? > > Who's the lazy bum, again? Still the same one that Linus pointed out. No amount of faulty logic can change that. > > And you seem to argue that it's perfectly fine to ignore the people who > > design hardware and the services around them, > > Just like they seem to think it's perfectly fine to ignore a number of > people who design and maintain the software they decided to use in > their hardware. Huh? They have complied with the terms - and, IMHO, the spirit - of the license under which that software was released. > > Guys, you should be ashamed of calling yourself "free software" people. > > > > You sound more like the RIAA/MPAA ("we own all the rights! We _own_ your > > sorry asses for even listening to our music") and a bunch of whiners that > > think that just because you have touched a piece of hardware you > > automatically can do anythign you want to it, and nobody elses rights > > matter in the least! > > > > Guys, in fighting for "your rights", you should look a bit at *other* > > peoples rights too. Including the rights of hw manufacturers, and the > > service providers. Because this is all an eco-system, where in order to > > actually succeed, you need to make _everybody_ succeed. > > Good. How about thinking of the users, the customers of your dear > friends too? The ones who might be contributing much more to your > project. If they are *CONTRIBUTING* then they are not just simple users anymore. > Then look how what you said in the paragraph before about RIAA/MPAA > applies to what TiVO is doing to the software, and realize that you're > accusing us of doing what the party you support does. > > I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm not pushing anything. I'm > defending the GPLv3 from accusations that it's departing from the GPL > spirit, and I'm trying to find out in what way Tivoization promotes > the goals you perceive as good for Linux, that make GPLv2 > advantageous. So far, you haven't given any single reason about this. > You talked about tit-for-tat, you said anti-Tivoization in GPLv3 was > bad, but you don't connect the dots. Forgive if I get the impression > that you're just fooling yourself, and misguiding a *lot* of people > out there in the process. And failing. You say that the intent and spirit of the GPLv2 is clear if you read it. I read it and I feel its pretty clear that the only things that the GPLv2 sought to protect are *EXACTLY* "copying, distribution and modification". 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/