Message-ID: <4677E56F.60709@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:17:19 +0400
From:	Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Stezenbach <js@...uxtv.org>
CC:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
	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>,
	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

Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007, Manu Abraham wrote:
>> Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>
>>> I argue that if you keep the free loaders out, you miss
>>> the chance to communicate with and educate them.
>>> Communication across borders doesn't work well, and you create
>>> a border between the morally "good" and the "bad".
>>>
>>> Of course you can't expect that every free loader will
>>> learn and accept the free software philosopy, some just
>>> won't. But to me that's acceptable, and the GPLv2, or indeed
>>> Linus' tit-for-tat interpretation of the GPLv2, is IMHO
>>> sufficient to protect my interests.
>> Err .. when you say protection on one hand and on the other you state
>> it's hard to keep free loaders away, 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> 
> IMHO it isn't even useful to try to keep free loaders away,
> it's better to try and integrate them gradually. That's part
> of the game.
> (Where "free loaders" is a term introduced by Alexandre, not by me.)
> 
> The GPLv2 is a sufficient tool to defend free software
> against those that don't even grasp tit-for-tat. But if
> they do, you can talk to them *as peers* and try to convince
> them that there's more to free software than just tit-for-tat.

What i _feel_ is that "some" (vendors) think that even if they utilize
existing resources what is open and keep what they have done, completely
closed (ie, they use existing infrastructure as a building block, but
they keep the stuff completely closed, in many cases the argument with
regards to IP is not even valid, as looking at symbol tables etc we find
some badly copied code from other parts etc, sewn together. The logical
thought what i have is that they do this to avoid a competition in the
short run) -- and they feel that they are doing things in a quite legal way.

> But it has to be their decision, IMHO it's wrong to force them.

Trying to force _anything_ on _anyone_ doesn't achieve anything, other
than just anger.

We at the worst could of course argue that users should avoid going for
that specific product, but i don't know how much that would work. I say
thus, because legally it would not be possible to challenge such vendors
globally as rules and regulations are different with different
governments and or countries. In such a case a tit-for-tat doesn't work
at all.

If all the people were to agree on common aspects, there wouldn't be any
wars at all ?

> The GPLv3 tries to be a tool to defend against those that
> don't subscribe to the full Free Software Definition.

If v3 defends the definition better, that would be a better use case,
don't you think so ? (But i don't see how v3 also will defend the
definition across international territories, in such a case what i
outlined, since have been bitten by this many times, even talking to the
black sheep which never helped)

-
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