Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753921AbXFSV0t (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:26:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751185AbXFSV0l (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:26:41 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.232]:25049 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751121AbXFSV0k (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:26:40 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=hiJcKp92Fn340XtMQyXcO8oPIHwUE+Uvsc+pqDAyCx9ofrfPiFFjB90Dyb3Z+CuOYzTyjmogMQMZdd22jNH0BcTOyFdfToyOXnGzfOUt//Y+O1FGaLCejRaCFMdGgcNqkjK7/7AI0cfxuftOr3YbNkZYd1CdGmi7BLIPwwvIcgs= Message-ID: <161717d50706191426w215d5ec8gc23477a6d85049e9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:26:38 -0400 From: "Dave Neuer" To: "Alexandre Oliva" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Anders Larsen" , david@lang.hm, "Ingo Molnar" , "Alan Cox" , "Daniel Hazelton" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , "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: <1182244240l.11262l.0l@ecxwww1.reanet.de> <1182283260l.4416l.0l@oscar.alarsen.net> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2e6f89c386190658 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1911 Lines: 40 On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 19, 2007, Anders Larsen wrote: > > > Only, your statement above seems to run counter to your previous claims > > that the "anti-tivoisation" provisions of GPLv3 would bring _more_ > > developers to copyleft software. > > > So which one is it? > > We might lose your contributions, that's true, I've never ever denied > that. And this will even have a cost for you, especially if you go > proprietary rather than some other more liberal Free Software license, > or stick with a GPLv2 Linux and hope it's never ruled as prohibiting > tivoization, or move to Linux on ROM. > > But it takes only a small fraction of the tivoizers to decide to take > out the locks, when faced with the costs mentioned above, for us to > gain contributions from even a small fraction of their user base > (which would then grow in hacker density as a result of > non-tivoization) for us to end up better off. Even if you're correct, that only takes into account the manufacturers who are using Linux _now_ who might be pressured to allowed modified versions to run. What about the lost opportunity cost of all of the future manufacturers who decide to use ProprietaryOS + locks instead of Linux? We don't get any of their code. But all of this is moot anyway. You are not going to win the argument on practical grounds anyway since Linus, Greg, Ingo and several other developers with collectively many lines of code in the kernel have stated in one form or another that they don't agree with the ethical goals of GPLv3. I don't understand who you think you're going to convince w/ continued debate? Dave - 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/