Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763939AbXFSFwV (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:52:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753947AbXFSFwO (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:52:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:42608 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753898AbXFSFwN (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:52:13 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Al Viro , Bernd Schmidt , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , 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: <200706181945.16343.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:51:19 -0300 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon\, 18 Jun 2007 20\:46\:44 -0700 \(PDT\)") 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: 2292 Lines: 68 On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers. > The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people. Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisions are *the* objectionable issue about GPLv3 for those of you who dislike GPLv3, this is circular reasoning: anti-tivoization is bad => we reject licenses with it => there are fewer developers willing to develop with such licenses => anti-tivoization is bad > Face it, the "open source" crowd is the *bigger* crowd. I really don't know about that. I can believe it may be so in LKML. > I haven't really seen a single one. Last I did the statistic, I asked the > top ~25-30 kernel developers about their opinion. NOT A SINGLE ONE > preferred the GPLv3. Wow, that's a really big sample among all Free Software and Open Source developers out there. And not even a little bit biased at that. > So I have actual *numbers* on my side. What do you have, except for a > history of not actually understanding my arguments? Which is worse, not understanding or repeatedly snipping out and addressing unrelated points? Let's please try again. I'll try to keep it simple, since you can't seem to be able to grasp the entire argument, and keep disregarding essential parts, disputing unrelated points and jumping to the conclusions that you've disputed the point I was trying to make. I'll present it in parts, as an attempt to stop you from making this mistake, that I'm sure is not intentional. The first part is in this e-mail. Dispute this: non-tivoized hardware => users can scratch their itches => more contributions from these users tivoized hardware => users can't scratch their itches => fewer contributions from these users -- 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/