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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 18, 2007, "Kevin Bowling" <lkml@kev009.com> wrote:

> Legitimate laws and practices require that certain devices not be
> modified by end users.  Therefore TiVo fails and contributions
> cease.

I've never denied this possibility.

But how about all the other devices that are being tivoized that do
NOT require this?

Are people just blind to this possibility?  Or does it really not
exist, and I'm the first who ever though of it?

>> Yes.  This is one option that doesn't bring any benefits to anyone.
>> It maintains the status quo for users and the community, but it loses
>> the ability for the vendor to upgrade, fix or otherwise control the
>> users.  Bad for the vendor.

> And users.  Don't spin the facts.

How is it good that the vendor can downgrade the software behind the
user's back?

Oh, yeah, right, it could upgrade it too.

> You are advocating things which hurt the end user,

Actually, no.  I'm advocating for respect for users' freedoms.
Whoever choose not to do that gets slightly hurt in the process, as an
incentive for respecting users' freedoms.  And yes, when the users'
freedoms are not respected (the cases you mentioned), that's bad for
the user, no doubt.  And bad for the community as well.

-- 
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/