Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759510AbXFQF5Z (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:57:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755743AbXFQF5Q (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:57:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:47822 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755397AbXFQF5P (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:57:15 -0400 To: Al Viro Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Bron Gondwana , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , 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: <200706161817.36657.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706162306.14516.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070617051451.GD21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:56:24 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070617051451.GD21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Sun\, 17 Jun 2007 06\:14\:51 +0100") 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: 2471 Lines: 56 On Jun 17, 2007, Al Viro wrote: > It's full of kludges exactly because it tries to carve out a notion > that can only be determined on case-to-case basis and not by generic > definition. I agree it's a very difficult definition. I'm not sure I'm happy with the wording in place right now. But I very much like and agree with its purpose, and it is in line with the goal of respecting and defending users' freedoms, which is what the FSF cares mostly about, and must care about, because it's its official and public mission. > I don't _care_ whether it breaks spirit, etc. That's what I care about, and I've seen false claims that it does. Can you please acknowledge that it doesn't, such that I can feel I've fulfilled my goal of dispelling the myth that the GPLv3 changes the spirit of the GPL? > GPLv3, with your involvement in its development or not, sucks rocks, > thanks to what you call anti-tivoization section. Is it correct to say that you share Linus' opinion, that the only problem with the GPLv3 is the anti-tivoization provision? To make this more concrete, if there was a hypothetical GPLv2.9, consisting of GPLv3dd4 minus the "installation information" requirements for user products, (i) Would you consider it a better license than GPLv2? (ii) Better for Linux? (iii) Enough to go through the trouble of switching? I'd love answers to these 3 questions from others too. Just in case, I shall point out, one more time, that I'm speaking for myself, not for the FSF, not for FSFLA, not for Red Hat. The questions above are to satisfy my personal curiosity. I don't make any commitment whatsoever to take the answers up to the FSF, and I don't want to set any expectations as to whether they could or would make any difference, at this point, about the outcome of GPLv3. If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is running short. -- 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/