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:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:58:30 -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 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> Actually you are in error here. You are saying "More home users == More 
> Developers" when the ratio of home users to developers isn't all that high. 
> (small set of facts: "Hacker" == "Developer" (in most cases, where the term, 
> as defined in the Jargon File, can actually be applied), "Home User" * 0.10 
> (ie: 10%) == "Developer" (approximately, and the correlation may be 
> lower). "TiVO" == "Developers" (note the plural - they do employ more than 
> one person for development))

As I wrote in another e-mail, why makes this proportion different for
the other conditions determined by the GPL?

I.e., what is it that makes this particular condition so allegedly
harmful for bringing in more developers and contributions, when
compared with the requirements on passing on source code, licensing
necessary patents, not suing other users over patent infringement in
the software, not invoking anti-circumvention laws, not entering
discriminatory agreements?

> So "TiVO", even though they are walking all over the freedoms you love, means 
> more *guaranteed* developers than the potential pool from the users of their 
> boxes. (the pool of potential developers among the millions of TiVO users is 
> actually miniscule, despite the size of the sample)

> However, you do make a good argument. But when you look at the statistics[1] 
> they don't hold water.

Err...  I have no idea of the actual user base of TiVo, but if it's
really in the millions, and your 10% figure above is right, this makes
for hundreds of thousands of hackers that could be scratching their
itches and improving Linux on TiVo boxes.

How many thousand employees does TiVo have working on Linux?

(I realize a full-time employee is a lot more than a Joe Random
Hacker, but still, I'm keeping a ratio of 100:1 to make up for that)

> PS: I've beaten the addiction!

Good for you!

-- 
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/