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 04:23:46 -0400
From:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
To:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
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 Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
> >> tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization
> >> is bad.
> >
> > However, my argument is straight logic, nothing "circular" about it.  :)
> > Replacing "X" in my logic path above with "tivoization" and "license"
> > with "GPLv3", as you've done, does produce a valid chain of logic.
>
> Yes.  Isn't it funny though that tivoization became necessary as a
> consequence of GPLv3 forbidding it?

-ELOGIC

It didn't become necessary as a result of the GPLv3 forbidding it. As I 
pointed out in text that was cut to keep the post short, there could be any 
number of reasons why "tivoization" is needed by the manufacturer. Other 
people have also pointed that out. This whole bit was to point out that you 
were inferring circular logic where none existed. 

<snip>
> >> Wait a minute, these figures you made up are for the tivoized hardware
> >> (no changes allowed to the GPLed software in it), or for the
> >> non-tivoized hardware (changes allowed to the GPLed software in it)?
> >
> > Actually, any generic "TiVO"-like hardware - whether it is tivoized or
> > not.
>
> So your claim is that a user's possibility to scratch her own itches
> makes no difference whatsoever as to their amount of contributions she
> is likely to make?

Exactly.

> Am I the only one who thinks this is utter nonsense?
>
> >> > those who will contribute them back: 38 (25%)
> >>
> >> Regardless of what you meant, this is 38 developers *on top* of
> >> however many the company pays to work on that, unless you're jumping
> >> the gun and spoiling the multi-part argument.
> >
> > 38ppm is a fairly small amount, regardless.
>
> Yes.  And your estimates are way too low too, FWIW.  Any reason why
> you changed your mind as to the 10% before?

That 10% was, IIRC, a reference to the potential number of "Hackers" that 
would own a TiVO. On thinking about it I realized that the number of hackers 
owning a TiVO would be vanishingly small because of "tivoization". So in this 
new set of numbers I dropped it entirely.

... crap I am tempted to respond to nastily has been cut ...

> > I think I'd rather see a guaranteed increase of developers - even if
> > it is only 10 - rather than hoping that the potential pool of 38
> > actually follows through. Wouldn't you?
>
> Yes.  How does this relate with the piece of the argument I've
> proposed so far, or the whole argument I've posted before?
>
> Answer: It doesn't.  At all.  You're just showing you didn't
> understand the argument.  Which shows why I have to explain it piece
> by piece.  Which suggests you shouldn't try to jump to conclusions.

Wrong. Nobody here needs a "piece by piece" explanation. So, in the belief 
that you were intelligent enough to understand that, I was providing proof 
that refutes your argument entirely.

With a situation as complex as what exists you can't split the argument into 
two and claim that, since "Argument A" is true in the "split" argument that 
it is true when the argument isn't split. This holds true for almost all 
real-world situations.

Now, I am not enjoying the discussion anymore. I've asked once before - remove 
me from the CC list.

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/