Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758729AbXFSGpb (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:45:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754354AbXFSGpY (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:45:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:54021 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752829AbXFSGpW (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:45:22 -0400 To: Daniel Hazelton 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 Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References:

<200706190221.09067.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:44:32 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706190221.09067.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Tue\, 19 Jun 2007 02\:21\:08 -0400") 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: 4402 Lines: 117 On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 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 > The logic is close to: > => License forbids X > => developer has requirement for X in license, can't add to project > => License forbidding X is bad I'm not sure it was clear that '=>' was meant as logical implication. Read it as "therefore". It's actually funny that what your inference sequence (in spite of the missing initial operand) rings so true about my impressions about some of the reactions I'm getting here. GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization is bad. :-) >> > 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. Sorry that I missed the markers. > Yes, the sample could be considered "biased" - jst as a sample taken > among the GCC developers could be considered "biased" towards the > other end of the spectrum. FWIW, I haven't taken such a sample, because I know my network of contacts would likely make it statistically useless. I'd not try to make an argument based on 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? > In other words - you've done the same and more. I've honestly tried not to. I believe Linus has, too. Many of us have talked past each other, a lot. That was actually the point behind breaking up the argument in small pieces. If Linus hadn't got the whole argument, a number of times, before, this might be described as dishonest, but since he did, and he can refer back to those messages, he can know where I'm going. >> 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 > Linus doesn't have to. Of course he doesn't. But he will. Because he's always right, and he wants to show that. That this is a bait and he knows it won't stop him. He knows there's no hook, because he knows where I'm going with the argument. But it's going to be interesting to watch. > Statistically the number of people that will even think of modifying > the code running on a "tivoized" device is minute Wait a minute, these figures you made up are for the tivoized hardware (no changes allowed to the GPLed software in it), or for the non-tivoized hardware (changes allowed to the GPLed software in it)? > those who will contribute them back: 38 (25%) Regardless of what you meant, this is 38 developers *on top* of however many the company pays to work on that, unless you're jumping the gun and spoiling the multi-part argument. > What you are arguing is that people should abandon I'm not arguing any such thing. Where's any such argument above? At this point, I'm only comparing a tivoized device with a non-tivoized device. Nothing but it. -- 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/