Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760609AbXFSRIS (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:08:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751975AbXFSRIH (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:08:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46971 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757856AbXFSRIG (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:08:06 -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: <200706190258.56955.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706190423.47166.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:06:17 -0300 In-Reply-To: <200706190423.47166.dhazelton@enter.net> (Daniel Hazelton's message of "Tue\, 19 Jun 2007 04\:23\:46 -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: 2561 Lines: 69 On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for >> >> tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization >> >> is bad. >> > >> > However, my argument is straight logic, nothing "circular" about it. :) >> > Replacing "X" in my logic path above with "tivoization" and "license" >> > with "GPLv3", as you've done, does produce a valid chain of logic. >> >> Yes. Isn't it funny though that tivoization became necessary as a >> consequence of GPLv3 forbidding it? > -ELOGIC I see. Try 'modprobe logic', it worked for me years ago ;-) :-D > It didn't become necessary as a result of the GPLv3 forbidding it. Which is why I said it was funny, because your inference chain stated *exactly* (with an implied "for the developers") that it did. Do you understand what an inference chain is? A => B, as in A implies B, which can also be read as A therefore B if A is known to hold. > there could be any number of reasons why "tivoization" is needed by > the manufacturer. This claim is false. Tivoization is when hardware manufacturer takes copyleft software and blocks updates by the user of the hardware. No single law so far has shown an example that even resembled to mandate copyleft software, and no contract could possibly establish a condition like this. Therefore, this claim is false. > This whole bit was to point out that you were inferring circular > logic where none existed. There *is* circular logic is in place. The initial premise of this fallacy is that anti-tivoization is bad for the project. This is used to conclude that licenses with such provisions should be rejected. This is then used to conclude that there are fewer developers who would develop under such licenses. Which is then used to conclude that anti-tivozation is bad for the project. -- 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/