Message-ID: <or3b0qgy8r.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:46:44 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	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 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
>> 
>> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
>> love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?

> You apparently do not understand "quid-pro-quo".

> Another way of stating it might be "same for same".

> A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never 
> said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole 
> point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND!

Yes.  And this was precisely what meant when I wrote "quid-pro-quo"
above.

> If you don't understand it after the above, I really can only say:

> 	"You are either terminally stupid, or you're not allowing yourself 
> 	 to see an obvious argument, because it destroys your world-view".

> The latter is very possible. It's a very human thing.

/me hands Linus a mirror


Serious, what's so hard to understand about:

  no tivoization => more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized
  computers => more users make useful modifications => more
  contributions in kind

?

Sure, there's a downside too:

  no tivoization => fewer contributions from manufacturers that demand
  on tivoization


My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so
you are better off without tivoization.


  
> it is also possible that they are of average intelligence, and they
> just cannot mentally _afford_ to follow the argument - it destroys
> the silyl stories they heard as children, and requires them to think
> too hard about the veracity of the source.



> PS. Since some people talked about the game theory aspects of 
> "tit-for-tat", I'd like to point out that what is usually considered an 
> even *better* strategy than "tit-for-tat" is actually "tit-for-tat with 
> forgiveness".

> In particular, "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is considered better when 
> there is ambiguity (like "communication difficulties" - does that sound 
> familiar?) in the encouter. You allow some leeway, and don't always 
> retaliate!

> So the FSF is DOING THE WRONG THING! They are turning "tit-for-tat" not 
> into "tit-for-tat with forgiveness", but into "tit-for-tat with preemptive 
> strikes".

Wrong.  It enables copyright holders to decide whether forgiveness is
appropriate, rather than forcing them to forgive.  Being forced to
forgive deception is not tit-for-tat, and it's a losing strategy.

-- 
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists