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: <200706182315.11466.dhazelton@enter.net>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:15:11 -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 Monday 18 June 2007 22:06:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, just think of how many times you've heard the argument "I
> >> can't give you the source code for this driver/firmware/etc under the
> >> GPLv2 because the law says so."
> >
> > Sorry to tell you this, but anyone that makes a modification to GPLv2
> > covered code and distributes that modification is bound by the license.
>
> Of course I know that.  I'm not the one making those arguments.
> And then, not all of those pieces of code are indeed moficiations of
> GPLv2-covered code, so your objection is off target.

I had a parsing error with your statement. My mind made the jump to "they are 
doing it with GPLv2 code" - meaculpa.

> >> > b) I think you're simply wrong in your math. I think more people
> >> > like the middle-ground and not-frothing-at-the-mouth spirit of "open
> >> > source" over the religious dogma of "free software".
> >>
> >> It looks like the math you're talking about is in no way related with
> >> anything I've argued about.  You seem to be thinking about the number
> >> of people who claim to be on the "free software" or "open source"
> >> sides, but I can't fathom in what way this is related with whether you
> >> get more or less contributions from users as a consequence of users'
> >> being permitted to tinker with the free software in their own devices.
> >
> > "More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More
> > Contributions"
> >
> > That equation is very simple to understand - claiming its wrong is
> > impossible.
>
> YES!  Thank you!  This is exactly the point I'm trying to make.
>
> Now can you please explain this to Linus in terms that his brain won't
> dismiss as "coming from a fundamentalist"?

No need. Linus already understands the equation, and also the secondary fact 
that most home users are not developers. However, companies like TiVO do 
employ developers. This is why the equation works.

> > Apparently because you can't admit that a good reason *IS* a good reason
> > when it conflicts with your belief that the FSF is correct.
>
> No, seriously.  Linus is disputing the equation above, dismissing my
> various attempts to show it to him, whenever it appears in teh context
> of tivoization, apparently because it doesn't match his moral belief
> that tivoization ought to be permitted on his moral grounds.

Actually you are in error here. You are saying "More home users == More 
Developers" when the ratio of home users to developers isn't all that high. 
(small set of facts: "Hacker" == "Developer" (in most cases, where the term, 
as defined in the Jargon File, can actually be applied), "Home User" * 0.10 
(ie: 10%) == "Developer" (approximately, and the correlation may be 
lower). "TiVO" == "Developers" (note the plural - they do employ more than 
one person for development))

So "TiVO", even though they are walking all over the freedoms you love, means 
more *guaranteed* developers than the potential pool from the users of their 
boxes. (the pool of potential developers among the millions of TiVO users is 
actually miniscule, despite the size of the sample)

However, you do make a good argument. But when you look at the statistics[1] 
they don't hold water.

> > PS: I know I've said I'm done with this conversation, but this is like a
> > bad habit. I just couldn't help myself.
>
> You've helped me a lot while at that.  Thanks!
>
> I hope this helps others fundamentalist anti-fundamentalists :-) see
> reason too.

I love that phrase!

But seriously, all I did was stop trying to give fully reasoned counters 
(complete with examples) and state the simple truth.

DRH
[1] "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics" - 
Attribution uncertain (Benjamin Disraeli, Mark Twain and Alfred Marshal are 
all said to have issued this famous quotation)

PS: I've beaten the addiction! This post was to clarify some things that were 
either misunderstood or stood a chance of being twisted to mean something 
other than what I intended. (not that anyone did the latter)

-- 
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/