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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 19, 2007, david@lang.hm wrote:

> if you also make the assumption that the company won't use propriatary
> software instead then I think you would get agreement.

Ah, good point.  When I posed the one of the two cases of the inicial
scenario as "no tivoization", I meant Free Software without
constraints.

> but the disagrement is over this exact assumption. you assume that
> these companies will use non-tivoized products if you make it hard
> to use the software covered by the GPL, most other people are saying
> that they disagree and the result would be fewer companies useing
> software covered by GPL instead.

I understand that.  And what I'm saying is that, even if fewer such
companies use GPLed software, you may still be better off, out of
additional contributions you'll get from customers of companies that
switch from tivoization to unconstrained Free Software, because of the
additional costs of the alternatives.

And no, I can't prove it, but it's good that at least the argument is
no longer completely disregarded while something else is disputed.


Now that you guys at least understand what the argument is, you can
figure out the solution by yourselves.

-- 
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/