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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15T04:35:05Z

On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:22:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
> > Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
> > any fscking thing.
>
> Ok, lemme try again:
>
> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
> the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up

And there is nothing in the license that says that this has to be done.
Claiming that it is a requirement because of the "spirit" of the license or
that such was the "intent" of the license does not make it any less legal
than it is. And, as I've taken the time to explain to you, lacking any clear
statement, written at the exact same time as the license, a statement of
intent or spirit cannot have any real legal weight when the text of a license
is finally decided upon. The reason, in case you missed the mail in which I
gave it, is that the author *cannot*, no matter the belief anyone may have in
their honesty or the oaths they may swear, be trusted to have *not* changed
his/her mind as to the intent and/or spirit of the license at any time after
the license goes into use.

DRH

> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:45:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Where's the payback, or the payforward?
> >>
> >> And then, tit-for-tat is about equivalent retaliation, an eye for an
> >> eye. Where's the retaliation here?
> >>
> >> If GPLv2 were tit-for-tat, if someone invents artifices to prevent the
> >> user from making the changes the user wants on the software, wouldn't
> >> it be "equivalent retaliation" to prevent the perpetrator from making
> >> the changes it wants on the software?

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.