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:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:07:49 -0300
From:	Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
To:	lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	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 20, 2007, lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to
>> match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction)
>> 
>> 
>> Vendor doesn't care about tivoizing, their business works the same
>> either way.

> Not true.  A PVR that can record pay per view and encrypted digital
> channels

You see the "not intended to match TiVo" above?

Do you see that it's pointless to dispute antecedents of a logical
inference rule, if you don't know what role it plays in the full
argument?

Consider that this could be a proof by contradiction to realize how
pointless your objection is, no matter how true the point you state
is.  It bears no relationship with the argument at hand, and you said
so yourself, by disputing the assumptions of the inference, rather
than its conclusions.

Assumptions that were not even used to arrive at the conclusions, BTW.

>> Can you point out any flaw in this reasoning, or can we admit it as
>> true?

> Certainly fails to be true.

Once you change the conditions to twist whatever else you want, then
you arrive at different conclusions.  What's the surprise here?

What you're doing is like, after getting an argument like this:

  assumptions:
    1+1 = 2
    2+1 = 3

  provable consequence:

    1+1+1 = 3

responding:

  no, no, that's wrong!  the right argument is:

  assumptions:

    3+4 = 7
    2+1 = 3

  provable consequence:

    2+1+4 = 7

  therefore the answer is 5, not 3!

You see how illogical this is?

It doesn't matter whether your argument is correct.  It just doesn't
dispute the proposition at hand.

-- 
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/