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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-20T21:10:50Z

On Jun 20, 2007, lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to
>> match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction)
>>
>>
>> Vendor doesn't care about tivoizing, their business works the same
>> either way.

> Not true. A PVR that can record pay per view and encrypted digital
> channels

You see the "not intended to match TiVo" above?

Do you see that it's pointless to dispute antecedents of a logical
inference rule, if you don't know what role it plays in the full
argument?

Consider that this could be a proof by contradiction to realize how
pointless your objection is, no matter how true the point you state
is. It bears no relationship with the argument at hand, and you said
so yourself, by disputing the assumptions of the inference, rather
than its conclusions.

Assumptions that were not even used to arrive at the conclusions, BTW.

>> Can you point out any flaw in this reasoning, or can we admit it as
>> true?

> Certainly fails to be true.

Once you change the conditions to twist whatever else you want, then
you arrive at different conclusions. What's the surprise here?

What you're doing is like, after getting an argument like this:

assumptions:
1+1 = 2
2+1 = 3

provable consequence:

1+1+1 = 3

responding:

no, no, that's wrong! the right argument is:

assumptions:

3+4 = 7
2+1 = 3

provable consequence:

2+1+4 = 7

therefore the answer is 5, not 3!

You see how illogical this is?

It doesn't matter whether your argument is correct. It just doesn't
dispute the proposition at hand.

--
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}