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

Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-15T19:40:33Z

On Jun 15, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
>> > any fscking thing.

>> 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

> So? The user still has the source and is free to use that in other
> GPLv2 projects, that's the point.

This point of yours is a distraction from the argument in this
sub-thread.

These cases were Chris Friesen's attempt to show that GPLv2 was
tit-for-tat, and case 2'' shows it isn't, at least not in the sense he
tried to picture it:

On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> That's where Linus' theory of tit-for-tat falls apart.

> Nope.

> case 1: Upstream provides source, tivo modifies and distributes it
> (to their customers).

> case 2: tivo provides source, end user modifies and distributes it
> (possibly to their customers, maybe to friends, possibly even to
> upstream).

> See? Tit for tat.

--
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}