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

Helge Hafting
2007-06-20T12:28:08Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> 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 you're blaming Tivo for the fact that your end user was a lazy bum and
> wanted to take advantage of somebody elses hard work without permission?
>
> Quite frankly, I know who the bad guy in that scenario is, and it ain't
> Tivo. It's your lazy bum, that thought he would just take what Tivo did,
> sign the contract, and then not follow it. And just because the box
> _contained_ some piece of free software, that lazy bum suddenly has all
> those rights? Never mind all the *other* effort that went into bringing
> that box to market?
>
> You do realize that Tivo makes all their money on the service, don't you?
> The actual hardware they basically give away at cost, exactly to get the
> service contracts. Not exactly a very unusual strategy in the high-tech
> world, is it?
>
Not unusual - but so what.
This strategy may backfire if users find a way
to use the cheap box for something without Tivo's service contract.

That don't make me feel sorry for Tivo - they can then sell their
boxes with some profit - or go bankrupt for doing stupid business.

Similiar to how unrealistic cheap printers backed by ink sales
fail when third parties undercuts the ridiculously expensive ink.
Or give-away cellphones tied to an expensive provider, being
unlocked by third parties so a switch to a cheaper provider will work.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against Tivo - and nothing for
them either. Them making a locked device is just a fun arms
race to see who can reprogram the bootloader key
or find some other clever way to load software. . .

> Guys, in fighting for "your rights", you should look a bit at *other*
> peoples rights too. Including the rights of hw manufacturers, and the
> service providers. Because this is all an eco-system, where in order to
> actually succeed, you need to make _everybody_ succeed.
>
Nothing against a hw manufacturers right - but of course they
have no particular right to succeed with give-away hw and
expensive service. When that strategy fail due to people operating
the hw without buing service then the cure is to charge properly
for the hw, not to ask everybody to please stop hacking.

Assuming that nobody can change the box after the sale is
their risk, and there is nothing unfair about failure here.

Helge Hafting