Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759602AbXFQG7d (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:59:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755397AbXFQG70 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:59:26 -0400 Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50438 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758821AbXFQG7Z (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:59:25 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Alexandre Oliva Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:59:09 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , Bernd Schmidt , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <200706170148.11043.dhazelton@enter.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706170259.09994.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 10331 Lines: 254 On Sunday 17 June 2007 02:27:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> >> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is. > >> > > >> > No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people > >> > don't *agree* on the "spirit". > >> > >> They don't have to. > >> > >> Just like nobody but you can tell why you chose the GPLv2, nobody but > >> RMS can tell why he wrote the GPL. And the intent behind writing the > >> GPL is what defines its spirit. > > > > "Charging for programs is an crime against humanity" > > Assuming he actually said that, I have no doubt that it would > pre-dates by far even the Free Software Definition, let alone the GPL. The quote actually pre-dates the FSF > > See, you can't even keep the FSF's "Free Software Definition" and its > > inherent "religion" out of the discussion. > > Of course not. That's what the spirit of the GPL is all about. And > the spirit of the GPL is what the discussion is all about for me. The "spirit" is no different than "intent". Different words that mean the exact same thing. > > Sure, the FSF can claim that the GPL is intended as a way to > > "defend" the "Four Freedoms" defined *BY* *THEM*, but unless alluded > > to in the license, the only bearing it can have, anywhere, is on the > > "intent" of the license, as seen by the FSF. > > Exactly! And since the *Free* *Software* Foundation wrote the > license, and documented the goals in the preamble, referring to > keeping *free* *software* *free*, it is quite safe to say that this > *is* indeed the intent, the spirit of the GPL. The intent of the GPL, as seen by the FSF, *DOESN'T* *MATTER* *AT* *ALL* when the software isn't licensed by the FSF. Or did you forget that part of the discussion? > > And if the "ability to run a "covered work" on any piece of hardware > > is "freedom 0" then binary distribution is in violation of the > > "spirit" - I can't run an x86 binary on a PPC. Isn't that a > > "designed in hardware restriction" that violates the "spirit" of the > > license ? > > It's not. freedom and ability have two very different meanings. This isn't what you've argued before. The hardware doesn't allow me to run the software, so its a designed-in limitation on the freedom of the end-user. > Freedom to run the software for any purpose means that people won't > stop you from doing that. It may take you some work, such as porting > the software, rebuilding it, etc. But if, at the end of that effort, > you find that it will run on your development machine, but not in a > machine where the original software runs on, and that's because the > manufacturer imposed prohibitions on running unauthorized versions of > the software, then the manufacturer of the hardware is very clearly > disrespecting your freedom #0 WRT that software. But a PPC binary won't run on an x86 either :) No, I'm in agreement with you here. But I'm smart enough to not buy something that does this to me. > Demanding the ability to run the software for any purpose, without any > effort whatsoever, would indeed be nonsensical. > > > (BTW, covered work is a legal term, only present in the legal portion > of the license, which I'm actively avoiding, because I'm not a lawyer, > and my point is about the spirit. but I'm sure I wrote that before > ;-) I use it because that is the term used in the GPLv2. And since the GPLv3 (dd4) is no longer specific to software "covered work" is the best choice. > >> > I'd be stupid to select the worse of two licenses, wouldn't I? > >> > >> Yes. That's precisely why I don't understand your stance. Because I > >> expect you to be intelligent, but starting from your stated motivation > >> for choosing GPLv2, and from the consequences of the anti-tivoization > >> provisions, you'd satisfy your motivations better with v3. > > > > It is only *YOUR* opinion that the GPLv3 is the better license. > > Are you even reading what I write? Yes. But you are interpreting Linus' intentions using your own preconceived beliefs, rather than looking at the situation objectively. > >> Tivoization reduces the motivation for customers of tivoized devices > >> to improve the software. You end up with contributions from the > >> manufacturers alone, instead of from all the user community. > > > > No, it reduces their motivation to improve the software on *those* > > devices. If they like the software enough to actually download the > > source, they probably also liked it enough to install it on their > > computer *AND* will modify it to make it work better on their > > computer. > > Sure, but that's a different point. They could do that with or > without tivoization. Exactly. Tivoization doesn't make a damned bit of difference. > The point is that, if they have an issue with the program in the > device, and they'd like to improve it, but they find that they won't > be able to use their modification to get the device to do what they > want, they're less likely to make the change. They complain to the manufacturer, file a report with a consumer watchdog agency and start advising people against buying the device. > Now multiply this by all customers, and see how much you're losing by > permitting tivoization, assuming that at least some tivoizers would > change their minds towards respecting users' freedoms, if faced with > an anti-tivoization licensing provision. Apply the same logic to my above statement and tell me - how much money does the company lose ? > > With your argument about reduced motive shotten down this portion falls > > apart. > > A distraction doesn't shoot down an argument. Quite thoroughly shot down. > >> - the spirit of the GNU GPL, written by RMS in the FSF, is to keep > >> Free Software Free, respecting and defending the freedoms of users of > >> software licensed under the GPL > > > > Agreed. The disagreement is about what that spirit is. > > What is the 'agreed' supposed to mean, then? ;-) It means that I agree that the GPL is about "respecting and defending freedoms" > > I feel that its spirit is in the free and open exchange of ideas, as > > personified by the software people write. I *ALSO* feel that it's > > spirit lies in the phrase "do whatever you want with the software as > > long - but if you add your own ideas to it, give them back to the > > people like your inspiration was given to you." > > You're entitled to have these motivations to release software under > GPLv2, or any other license that you believe furthers these goals. > > But you have no say whatsoever on what intent RMS had when he wrote > the GPL, just like he has no say whatsoever on what intent you have > when you choose the GPL for your program. I never claimed I did. I was just pointing out that your belief that there is only one "spirit" of the license is complete and utter BS. > > You, the FSF and, apparently, RMS, feel it is about the "Four > > Freedoms" as defined by RMS. > > s/feel/know/ I said exactly what I meant. > > I'm quite sure that my view is much more common among the people > > that *DON'T* think that the FSF and RMS are never wrong. > > Others can choose the GPL for other reasons. There's nothing wrong > with this. > > What's wrong is to then complain that the GPL is changing the spirit, > just because the revised version allegedly no longer matches their > reasons. It isn't, because from my own, and other peoples, viewpoint it *IS*. > >> - GPLv3 does not change this spirit > >> > >> On the contrary, it advances this spirit. Given that defending > >> these freedoms is the mission of the FSF, it's no surprise that it > >> does revise the GPL to do it. It's not like it has a choice. > > > > Again, that is *your* version of the "spirit". > > Again, this is the FSF version of the spirit, the only one that > matters as far as "the spirit of the GPL" is concerned. So you admit you believe what the FSF says? > >> - Tivoization reduces the incentive for contributions > >> > >> Customers of tivoized devices can't enjoy or even test the benefits > >> of their modifications to the software on the device where the > >> modifications would be most useful for them. > > > > I agree to the "can't enjoy or test" bits. > > See, no "argument shot down" ;-) > > > But I don't believe that it reduces anything. > > It reduces the incentive for these users to collaborate. > > Or, if you want to put it in a positive tone, the ability to enjoy and > test their modifications would grow the number of contributors. More > "giving back in kind". More tit-for-tat. If the platform doesn't allow the running of modified binaries, why would the modifications matter? Sure, TiVO might like them - hell, they might even pay for them - but would anyone else? So modifications for that "closed execution" platform might suffer, but that is the *ONLY* thing that will suffer. > > Personally I feel that anything that exposes people to "Free > > Software" is a *BONUS*. > > I don't think tivoized software qualifies as Free Software any more. > > Sure, they still get the sources and that's still Free Software, but > the tivoized binaries aren't. Yes, they are. But only because the law states that they are. > > Yes. Because a number of your "facts" are massively flawed. > > Because you say so? Even though you agree with points after claiming > to have shot them down? Now that's rational! I agreed with *portions* of some of the statements. However, did I actually say which facts I found flawed? > > Now, please, you've proven to me that you can't, in fact, do any > > *objective* thinking about this topic. > > /me hands Daniel a mirror I've been looking at this objectively the entire time. That you don't understand that is just more proof that you aren't. 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/