Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 
>> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
>> the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up

> So you're blaming Tivo for the fact that your end user was a lazy bum and 
> wanted to take advantage of somebody elses hard work without permission?

-ENONSEQUITUR

> Quite frankly, I know who the bad guy in that scenario is, and it ain't 
> Tivo. It's your lazy bum, that thought he would just take what Tivo did, 
> sign the contract, and then not follow it. And just because the box 
> _contained_ some piece of free software, that lazy bum suddenly has all 
> those rights?

Yes, because the software license that TiVo signed up for says that
TiVo must pass on certain rights and not impose any further
restrictions.

And all that because TiVo wanted to use kernel and userland that were
readily available, and at no cost other than respecting others'
freedoms, while at that?

Who's the lazy bum, again?

> And you seem to argue that it's perfectly fine to ignore the people who 
> design hardware and the services around them,

Just like they seem to think it's perfectly fine to ignore a number of
people who design and maintain the software they decided to use in
their hardware.

> Guys, you should be ashamed of calling yourself "free software" people. 

> You sound more like the RIAA/MPAA ("we own all the rights! We _own_ your 
> sorry asses for even listening to our music") and a bunch of whiners that 
> think that just because you have touched a piece of hardware you 
> automatically can do anythign you want to it, and nobody elses rights 
> matter in the least!

> Guys, in fighting for "your rights", you should look a bit at *other* 
> peoples rights too. Including the rights of hw manufacturers, and the 
> service providers. Because this is all an eco-system, where in order to 
> actually succeed, you need to make _everybody_ succeed.

Good.  How about thinking of the users, the customers of your dear
friends too?  The ones who might be contributing much more to your
project.

Then look how what you said in the paragraph before about RIAA/MPAA
applies to what TiVO is doing to the software, and realize that you're
accusing us of doing what the party you support does.

I'm not trying to impose anything.  I'm not pushing anything.  I'm
defending the GPLv3 from accusations that it's departing from the GPL
spirit, and I'm trying to find out in what way Tivoization promotes
the goals you perceive as good for Linux, that make GPLv2
advantageous.  So far, you haven't given any single reason about this.
You talked about tit-for-tat, you said anti-Tivoization in GPLv3 was
bad, but you don't connect the dots.  Forgive if I get the impression
that you're just fooling yourself, and misguiding a *lot* of people
out there in the process.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/