linux-kernel - Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:06:57 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

>> Actually, just think of how many times you've heard the argument "I
>> can't give you the source code for this driver/firmware/etc under the
>> GPLv2 because the law says so."

> Sorry to tell you this, but anyone that makes a modification to GPLv2 covered 
> code and distributes that modification is bound by the license.

Of course I know that.  I'm not the one making those arguments.
And then, not all of those pieces of code are indeed moficiations of
GPLv2-covered code, so your objection is off target.

>> > b) I think you're simply wrong in your math. I think more people
>> > like the middle-ground and not-frothing-at-the-mouth spirit of "open
>> > source" over the religious dogma of "free software".
>> 
>> It looks like the math you're talking about is in no way related with
>> anything I've argued about.  You seem to be thinking about the number
>> of people who claim to be on the "free software" or "open source"
>> sides, but I can't fathom in what way this is related with whether you
>> get more or less contributions from users as a consequence of users'
>> being permitted to tinker with the free software in their own devices.

> "More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More 
> Contributions"

> That equation is very simple to understand - claiming its wrong is impossible.

YES!  Thank you!  This is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Now can you please explain this to Linus in terms that his brain won't
dismiss as "coming from a fundamentalist"?

> Apparently because you can't admit that a good reason *IS* a good reason when 
> it conflicts with your belief that the FSF is correct.

No, seriously.  Linus is disputing the equation above, dismissing my
various attempts to show it to him, whenever it appears in teh context
of tivoization, apparently because it doesn't match his moral belief
that tivoization ought to be permitted on his moral grounds.

> PS: I know I've said I'm done with this conversation, but this is like a bad 
> habit. I just couldn't help myself.

You've helped me a lot while at that.  Thanks!

I hope this helps others fundamentalist anti-fundamentalists :-) see
reason too.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/