Message-Id: <200706152106.35889.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:06:35 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 Friday 15 June 2007 20:22:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > * Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
> >> > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware that the
> >> > FSF's president does not like.
> >>
> >> That's not true.  They can just as well throw the key away and refrain
> >> from modifying the installed software behind the users' back.
> >
> > uhm, so you claim that my argument is false, and your proof for that is
> > a "non-upgradeable Tivo"?? <sarcasm> That is a _great_ idea. Not being
> > able to patch security holes. Not being able to fix bugs. Not being able
> > to add new features. Makes complete sense.
>
> Oh, so you think patching security holes, fixing bugs and adding new
> features are good ideas?  What if you can't do it in your TiVo?
>
> >> > guess why this section has been completely removed from the GPLv3,
> >> > without a replacement?
> >>
> >> My guess:
> >>
> >> First, because it was redundant, given that the license didn't quite
> >> discuss other activities.  Unless you count say "imposing restrictions
> >> on the exercise of others' freedoms" as other activities, even though
> >> these are associated with modification and distribution.
> >
> > here you prove that you cannot even read what i wrote. I wrote that this
> > section has been removed from the GPLv3. What relevance does it have
> > that in your opinion this section was redundant in the GPLv2??
>
> If you didn't mean "removed from the GPLv3 as compared with v2", I
> misunderstood what you wrote.
>
> The fact that it's redundant is v2 means it is reasonable to take it
> out.  That's the relevance.

It isn't redundant at all. I specifies the definitions of several terms used 
in the GPLv2 and also defines the exact scope of the license. If you feel 
that the definition of the terms and the limitation of scope were redundant 
then you are sadly mistaken.

> > It would clearly not be redundant in the GPLv3: it would contradict
> > and _completely neutralize_ most of the crap from the GPLv3 that we
> > are talking about here ...
>
> And, per the same reasoning, some of the v2 provisions as well.

For a license to be legally enforceable it must be internally consistent. 
Without that internal consistency it becomes very easy to circumvent it. The 
GPLv2's definitions and defined scope - as per section 0 - define the limits 
of the license and are entirely consistent with the rest of it. What it 
*isn't* consistent with is the FSF's other "propaganda" and the wants of the 
FSF to make certain activities verboten in GPLv3.

> > dont you realize that declaring certain types of activities by hardware
> > makers as being "against freedom" is _exactly_ such an activity that the
> > GPLv2 did not attempt to control?
>
> No.  And some Linux hackers disagree with your assessment too.

And that is their right. However, it appears to a nearly unanimous consensus 
that it is the truth. It may not be liked by some people, but likes and 
dislikes don't matter.

> > censure, opression of free speech, out of control climate,
> > dictatorship, campaign financing laws, the WIN32 API and human
> > stupidity. By your argument we'd have to add prohibition against
> > those restrictions of freedom to the license too, right?
>
> -ENONSEQUITUR
>
> How do these stop a user's exercise of the four freedoms of a piece of
> software licensed under the GPL?
>
> > Your argument still leads to absurd results, even now that you've
> > modified it a few times already ...
>
> I hope you're not saying that my listening to you, recognizing
> mistakes in my arguments and fixing them up is a bad thing.
>
> But hey, at least I'm not modifying my arguments as much as you are!
> ;-)
>
> It's pretty easy to shoot a straw man and claim the original argument
> was broken.

Yep. I've done it to you on more than one occasion, Alexandre. The part that 
makes me laugh is that you still haven't realized it.

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists