Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758927AbXFTAj5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:39:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754831AbXFTAjt (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:39:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44116 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754599AbXFTAjs (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:39:48 -0400 To: david@lang.hm Cc: Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , Bernd Schmidt , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Greg KH , debian developer , 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> <200706190258.56955.dhazelton@enter.net> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:38:49 -0300 In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Tue\, 19 Jun 2007 16\:57\:04 -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: 1679 Lines: 38 On Jun 19, 2007, david@lang.hm wrote: > if you also make the assumption that the company won't use propriatary > software instead then I think you would get agreement. Ah, good point. When I posed the one of the two cases of the inicial scenario as "no tivoization", I meant Free Software without constraints. > but the disagrement is over this exact assumption. you assume that > these companies will use non-tivoized products if you make it hard > to use the software covered by the GPL, most other people are saying > that they disagree and the result would be fewer companies useing > software covered by GPL instead. I understand that. And what I'm saying is that, even if fewer such companies use GPLed software, you may still be better off, out of additional contributions you'll get from customers of companies that switch from tivoization to unconstrained Free Software, because of the additional costs of the alternatives. And no, I can't prove it, but it's good that at least the argument is no longer completely disregarded while something else is disputed. Now that you guys at least understand what the argument is, you can figure out the solution by yourselves. -- 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/