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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:39:50 -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 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> I care about one thing, and one thing only: I care that you respect my 
> choice of license for the projects _I_ started. Nothing more.

I do.  Really.

Once the issue about the spirit of the GPL is (hopefully) settled with
all concerned about it, my job would have been done if it hadn't been
for my having got interested in this other issue:

> I think the GPLv2 is superior to the GPLv3.  That is simply not something 
> you can argue against. You can just say "ok, it's your choice". You can 
> ask me *why*, and I've told you at length, but in the end, it doesn't 
> matter. 

Let me explain why I don't see that you've told me at length why you
consider GPLv2 superior to GPLv3.

1. I asked you why GPLv2 is better, and you said it was because it
promoted giving back in kind.

2. I asked you what you didn't like about GPLv3, and you said it was
Tivoization.

3. Then I argued that, since Tivoization enables tivoizers to remove
some motivation for potential developers (= their customers) to
contribute, you trade the potential contributions of all those users
for the contributions of tivoizers, apparently assuming that all
tivoizers would simply move away from the community, taking their
future contributions away from your community, rather than moving to a
position in which you'd get not only the contributions from the
company itself, but also from all their users.

This last piece of the theorem that proves that GPLv2 is more aligned
with your stated goals than GPLv3 is the one that is missing, and so
far you've dodged that portion entirely.  That's the 'connecting the
dots' that I mentioned earlier.  You haven't even acknowledged its
existence, going back to points 1. and 2. as if they were enough, as
if 3. didn't show a contradiction between them.

Now, it may be that 3. is wrong, or that you think it is wrong.  But
you've never said so, or explained why you think so.  You've simply
disregarded that point entirely.

Do you understand now why I feel you haven't answered the 'why'?

-- 
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/