From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:57:20 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200706200157.20527.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1488
Lines: 40

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Tivo didn't make the Linux success. More Tivos can definitely undo it.
>

I don't think so.

First, it's not Linux that made success, but rather GNU that uses Linux as 
its kernel.  And, believe it or not, when people say Linux, they really mean 
GNU.  People could care less what kernel they were running, as long as the 
system is up and runs the procs that offer their services.

It was probably a strategic mistake for GNU to lock into Linux, instead of 
developing a system that would allow GNU to plug-and-play the Kernel.  A 
mistake that could easily be rectified, given enough desire.

Second, GPLv2 was/is probably instrumental to the success of GNU/Linux.  
That's because GPLv2 seems to be fair, which allows the largest possible 
community to form.  Changing this fairness, driven by paranoia arguments, to 
hamper commercial entities to enter this community may possibly reduce the 
growth of this community.

Interestingly, it's this same paranoia that drives kernel developer to 
renounce a "Stable Kernel API" for fear of exploitation by certain 
commercial entities.  Which makes you kind of wonder, why they wouldn't move 
to GPLv3.

Or does paranoia and paradox go hand in hand?


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/