Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761413AbXFQXfY (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:35:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759963AbXFQXfL (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:35:11 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:53159 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752844AbXFQXfJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:35:09 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:33:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alexandre Oliva cc: 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 Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070614195517.GA4933@elte.hu> <20070614235004.GA14952@elte.hu> <20070615011012.6c09066e@the-village.bc.nu> <20070615012623.GA25189@elte.hu> <20070615101007.0cbfd078@the-village.bc.nu> <4673CA7C.5040207@t-online.de> <20070616181902.GB21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> 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: 1626 Lines: 58 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never > > said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole > > point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND! > > Yes. And this was precisely what meant when I wrote "quid-pro-quo" > above. Ok, so we're on the same page. "software for software". > > "You are either terminally stupid, or you're not allowing yourself > > to see an obvious argument, because it destroys your world-view". > > > > The latter is very possible. It's a very human thing. > > /me hands Linus a mirror "I'm a damn handsome dude, ain't I?" > Serious, what's so hard to understand about: You're talking about something totally different. Answer my argument: - I think Tivoization is *good*. - Your license stops something *good*. Ergo: - Your license is *bad*. > Wrong. It enables copyright holders to decide whether forgiveness is > appropriate, rather than forcing them to forgive. Being forced to > forgive deception is not tit-for-tat, and it's a losing strategy. There is NOTHING TO FORGIVE! Your whole idiotic argument misses the point: What Tivo did is *good* in my opinion! Can't you get that through your skull? They gave the software back! Be happy! They *followed* the rules. They *followed* the tit-for-tat. Linus - 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/