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

Rob Landley
2007-06-14T23:07:30Z

On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:25:46 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > that's fine, but the fundamental question is: where is the moral
> > > boundary of the power that the copyright license gives? The FSF
> > > seems to
> >
> > Assuming a democratic state then the laws of the land ought to reflect
> > the 'general will' (if you believe Rousseau anyway). They should thus
> > define the boundary ['derivative work' generally ] according to the
> > general good and with the consent of the people.
>
> uhm, so if the MPAA and the RIAA pays for another nice piece of
> legislation that extends the power of copyright owners, do you find it
> morally justified to use those powers, as long as it's argued to be in
> favor of some long-term goal that you judge to be moral, even if it
> results in some "temporary injustice"?

Turnabout is fair play, and unilateral disarmament is a bad strategy in a
mexican standoff?

Finding it morally justified to _have_ powers is not the same as finding it
morally justified to _use_ powers you have anyway. Lots of companies (like
Red Hat) amass defensive software patent portfolios because the patent system
is so screwed up.

But then, I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. You can be one or the other and
make it work. Mixing the two tends to suck. Being ruthlessly pragmatic in
the pursuit of an ideal (as the FSF seems to be doing) has often been a
recipe for disaster...

Rob