Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761294AbXFQVg7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:36:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756155AbXFQVgj (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:36:39 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.178]:21149 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753244AbXFQVgh (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:36:37 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dapuK4siO4mmvjoIDfn5VOwSNZz1oQqF/kXujlyrlU3TLmb932QUkKBBvtalc8plDH+gc5/mO9Ao7vNiwKyjX7dxVX7QFdJSzValhZyPrtsNJqMg8ISBz611jT4uy0R0XdtxE2c2E3ZDxGfk3wfhUe0cL84uQ8Ss//LStag55Jo= Message-ID: <9a8748490706171436x6b9f2f13pf115d97fee3b1525@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:36:36 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Alexandre Oliva" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Al Viro" , "Bernd Schmidt" , "Alan Cox" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Daniel Hazelton" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , david@lang.hm, "Tarkan Erimer" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4673CA7C.5040207@t-online.de> <20070616181902.GB21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4984 Lines: 115 On 17/06/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: [snip] > > Serious, what's so hard to understand about: > > no tivoization => more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized > computers => more users make useful modifications => more > contributions in kind > > ? > > Sure, there's a downside too: > > no tivoization => fewer contributions from manufacturers that demand > on tivoization > > > My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so > you are better off without tivoization. > I have to disagree. Let's say I'm the owner of a company selling some device that uses a GPLv2 OS and some GPLv2 applications to do the job. Let's say that for some reason I don't want the end users of my device to tinker with the software inside my device. Obviously I release the source for any modifications I may have made, but I use the hardware to prevent users from installing modified versions on the device (basically I TiVO'ize the device). Now I think you can agree to these things being positive: - My use of GPLv2 software in this device results in my employees being exposed to open source software at work (who knows, some may even start using such software at home as a result). A good thing. - The source code with my own modifications that I distribute as required by the GPLv2 can potentially be of use to other developers working on other GPLv2 software and those other developers are free to use those modifications. Also a good thing. - When creating marketing material for my device I'll most likely include information about the fact that I'm using WhatEverOS that is GPL'ed as well as other Open Source components. This in turn results in many people becoming aware that such software exist. I have to say that this is also a good thing. - When dealing with hardware companies supplying bits and pieces for my device I'll probably push for components that already have open source drivers, so my partners will find out there is value in having open source drivers for their stuff and hopefully end up supporting that. Yet another good thing. - If I end up being happy with my choice of GPLv2 OS & GPLv2 apps there's a, not insignificant, chance that I'll start helping out with the development of those components or maybe sponsor other developers with money to do so. Again we have a positive benefit. The only downside is that the end user purchasing the device can't install modified versions of the software on it. Now let's try it in a GPLv3 universe. Since I can no longer create my device without having to allow the end user to install modified software on it I probably turn to some closed source OS like WinCE or QNX (or maybe I use BSD, but now I can't be bothered to give my modifications back any longer since their license says I don't have to). I'm still happy, I can still sell my device and make money just like I used to, but: - My employees are no longer exposed to Open Source software at work. Bummer, no new users from there. - I no longer distribute the source for whatever modifications I make in-house. Damn, that's some nice software the community is missing out on. - Now my adverticing material is highlighting the use of some proprietary OS and apps. What a drag, no more free adverticing for open source software - actually, quite the opposite. - The next time I call my suppliers I just ask them to provide me whatever closed source drivers they have for BigCommercialClosedSourceOS and I'm happy since the drivers probably work just fine. Hmm, no more pressure on hardware companies to engage in developing open drivers. - Now that I'm paying all this money in licenses for all this proprietary software and not using any open source software at all, there's zero to no chance I'll throw any money, developers or whatever at any open source projects. Dang, we just lost some corporate funding. So, as I see it, tivoization isn't all bad. In fact I think the positives outweigh the negatives by quite a large margin. Sure, with GPLv3 you may win the battle and force some manufacturers away from your software if they can't/won't open their hardware up to end user modifications. But you'll lose the war in that you'll be killing the momentum that GPL'ed software has currently since you'll be driving a lot of players away from it. I'd rather have the few benefits we get from some company using GPL'ed software in tivoized hardware than get nothing at all because the GPLv3 drives that company into the arms of some proprietary vendor. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/