Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755211AbXFPI1r (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:27:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752618AbXFPI1l (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:27:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:58882 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752081AbXFPI1k (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:27:40 -0400 To: "Scott Preece" Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Rob Landley" , "Alan Cox" , "Daniel Hazelton" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , david@lang.hm, "Tarkan Erimer" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <20070614122031.4751a52b@the-village.bc.nu> <20070614122546.GB22078@elte.hu> <200706141907.11957.rob@landley.net> <20070615120926.GD6269@elte.hu> <7b69d1470706151503v23253546w5648f04673741c8f@mail.gmail.com> <7b69d1470706151752x30aeaaacl305d964b0ae4cc2d@mail.gmail.com> <7b69d1470706152247l3a6fbd70i4c0a94b3c82a455c@mail.gmail.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:26:57 -0300 In-Reply-To: <7b69d1470706152247l3a6fbd70i4c0a94b3c82a455c@mail.gmail.com> (Scott Preece's message of "Sat\, 16 Jun 2007 00\:47\:20 -0500") 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: 1638 Lines: 38 On Jun 16, 2007, "Scott Preece" wrote: > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" wrote: >> >> > Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is >> > the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device >> > non-updatable nor forcing the manufacturer to use different software >> > benefits anyone. >> >> I agree. But that's an incomplete picture. >> >> It's the other part of the picture, that you left out twice, that is >> the case that is good for the users *and* for the community. > --- > I don't think I "left it out". The point is that if the manufacturer > is unwilling to give the right to modify, no change in the language is > going to cause the user to have that right. If the alternatives are worse for the manufacturer than letting the user have it, then it will have the intended effects. In the other cases, it won't make much of a difference for anyone else. The question is: how does tivoization help the community (under the tit-for-tat reasoning)? Does it help more than anti-tivoization? -- 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/