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]

Message-ID: <orzm2v3md2.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:06:17 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
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 Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:

> 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

I see.  Try 'modprobe logic', it worked for me years ago ;-) :-D

> It didn't become necessary as a result of the GPLv3 forbidding it.

Which is why I said it was funny, because your inference chain stated
*exactly* (with an implied "for the developers") that it did.

Do you understand what an inference chain is?  A => B, as in A implies
B, which can also be read as A therefore B if A is known to hold.

> there could be any number of reasons why "tivoization" is needed by
> the manufacturer.

This claim is false.

Tivoization is when hardware manufacturer takes copyleft software and
blocks updates by the user of the hardware.

No single law so far has shown an example that even resembled to
mandate copyleft software, and no contract could possibly establish a
condition like this.

Therefore, this claim is false.

> This whole bit was to point out that you were inferring circular
> logic where none existed.

There *is* circular logic is in place.

The initial premise of this fallacy is that anti-tivoization is bad
for the project.

This is used to conclude that licenses with such provisions should be
rejected.

This is then used to conclude that there are fewer developers who
would develop under such licenses.

Which is then used to conclude that anti-tivozation is bad for the
project.

-- 
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/