Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754500AbXFVGBR (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:01:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751494AbXFVGBE (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:01:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:58152 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750769AbXFVGBD (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:01:03 -0400 To: Theodore Tso Cc: Al Viro , davids@webmaster.com, "Linux-Kernel\@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? References: <20070622013417.GT21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20070622041949.GA15625@thunk.org> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:00:30 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070622041949.GA15625@thunk.org> (Theodore Tso's message of "Fri\, 22 Jun 2007 00\:19\:49 -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: 2616 Lines: 55 On Jun 22, 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > has probably made it made it much more *unlikely* that the Linux > kernel will ever go GPLv3. That was a given from the start. The spin that there was any chance whatsoever it could possibly happen was just that. Even if Linus could possibly consider this, others have made it pretty clear that this was never an option for them, and Linus' explosion at my first one-liner intervention on GPLv3 isn't exactly a sign of being considering something reasonably. So, no, as I've repeatedly stated, I wasn't here to convince anyone to adopt GPLv3. I know you won't believe me. I don't care. I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them. I knew from the start that it was an uphill battle, and that I wouldn't be able to convince those who distrusted the FSF so much that they would listen to anything that resembled an FSF discourse with an extremely high rejection level. This was all expected. I wasn't here to convince them. I knew I wouldn't. I was here to set the record straight on the spirit of the GPL, not towards the most vocal opponents, but for others who hadn't formed an opinion, prejudiced or not. I was here to inform about GPLv3, not to push it. That I was perceived as pushing it is not surprising at all. The perception of "being forced" whenever something resembling the FSF ideology comes up is so strong here that some people just stop listening, stop thinking rationally (limbic system take-over?), or even get into outright name calling. No surprise here. I knew this was hostile territory, and I came prepared for this. I feel I have accomplished my goal: I've informed a lot of people about the GPL, about GPLv3, about Free Software and even about the FSFes. Whether they make a decision for GPLv3, GPLv2, or more liberal Free Software licenses, is up to them. Now, people who'd only been exposed to the prevailing views in this list can take something different into account, and make more-informed decisions. Thanks for listening. o-o -- 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/