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:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
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 Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > 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.

Ok, so we're on the same page.

"software for software".

> > 	"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

"I'm a damn handsome dude, ain't I?"

> Serious, what's so hard to understand about:

You're talking about something totally different.

Answer my argument:

 - I think Tivoization is *good*.

 - Your license stops something *good*.

Ergo:

 - Your license is *bad*.

> 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.

There is NOTHING TO FORGIVE!

Your whole idiotic argument misses the point:

	What Tivo did is *good* in my opinion!

Can't you get that through your skull?

They gave the software back! Be happy! They *followed* the rules. They 
*followed* the tit-for-tat.

			Linus
-
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/