On Jun 19, 2007, Anders Larsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Only, your statement above seems to run counter to your previous claims
> that the "anti-tivoisation" provisions of GPLv3 would bring _more_
> developers to copyleft software.
> So which one is it?
We might lose your contributions, that's true, I've never ever denied
that. And this will even have a cost for you, especially if you go
proprietary rather than some other more liberal Free Software license,
or stick with a GPLv2 Linux and hope it's never ruled as prohibiting
tivoization, or move to Linux on ROM.
But it takes only a small fraction of the tivoizers to decide to take
out the locks, when faced with the costs mentioned above, for us to
gain contributions from even a small fraction of their user base
(which would then grow in hacker density as a result of
non-tivoization) for us to end up better off.
Or so I believe ;-)
--
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]
