On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2,
>>
>> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you
>> love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?
> You apparently do not understand "quid-pro-quo".
> Another way of stating it might be "same for same".
> A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never
> said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole
> point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND!
Yes. And this was precisely what meant when I wrote "quid-pro-quo"
above.
> If you don't understand it after the above, I really can only say:
> "You are either terminally stupid, or you're not allowing yourself
> to see an obvious argument, because it destroys your world-view".
> The latter is very possible. It's a very human thing.
/me hands Linus a mirror
Serious, what's so hard to understand about:
no tivoization => more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized
computers => more users make useful modifications => more
contributions in kind
?
Sure, there's a downside too:
no tivoization => fewer contributions from manufacturers that demand
on tivoization
My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so
you are better off without tivoization.
> it is also possible that they are of average intelligence, and they
> just cannot mentally _afford_ to follow the argument - it destroys
> the silyl stories they heard as children, and requires them to think
> too hard about the veracity of the source.
> PS. Since some people talked about the game theory aspects of
> "tit-for-tat", I'd like to point out that what is usually considered an
> even *better* strategy than "tit-for-tat" is actually "tit-for-tat with
> forgiveness".
> In particular, "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is considered better when
> there is ambiguity (like "communication difficulties" - does that sound
> familiar?) in the encouter. You allow some leeway, and don't always
> retaliate!
> So the FSF is DOING THE WRONG THING! They are turning "tit-for-tat" not
> into "tit-for-tat with forgiveness", but into "tit-for-tat with preemptive
> strikes".
Wrong. It enables copyright holders to decide whether forgiveness is
appropriate, rather than forcing them to forgive. Being forced to
forgive deception is not tit-for-tat, and it's a losing strategy.
--
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
