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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15T05:45:04Z

On Friday 15 June 2007 00:14:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 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?
>
> -ENONSEQUITUR
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, because the software license that TiVo signed up for says that
> TiVo must pass on certain rights and not impose any further
> restrictions.

They don't add any restrictions that don't already exist. As stated in section
0 of the GPLv2 the scope of the license is "copying, distributing and
modification".

> And all that because TiVo wanted to use kernel and userland that were
> readily available, and at no cost other than respecting others'
> freedoms, while at that?
>
> Who's the lazy bum, again?

Still the same one that Linus pointed out. No amount of faulty logic can
change that.

> > And you seem to argue that it's perfectly fine to ignore the people who
> > design hardware and the services around them,
>
> Just like they seem to think it's perfectly fine to ignore a number of
> people who design and maintain the software they decided to use in
> their hardware.

Huh? They have complied with the terms - and, IMHO, the spirit - of the
license under which that software was released.

> > Guys, you should be ashamed of calling yourself "free software" people.
> >
> > You sound more like the RIAA/MPAA ("we own all the rights! We _own_ your
> > sorry asses for even listening to our music") and a bunch of whiners that
> > think that just because you have touched a piece of hardware you
> > automatically can do anythign you want to it, and nobody elses rights
> > matter in the least!
> >
> > 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.
>
> Good. How about thinking of the users, the customers of your dear
> friends too? The ones who might be contributing much more to your
> project.

If they are *CONTRIBUTING* then they are not just simple users anymore.

> Then look how what you said in the paragraph before about RIAA/MPAA
> applies to what TiVO is doing to the software, and realize that you're
> accusing us of doing what the party you support does.
>
> I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm not pushing anything. I'm
> defending the GPLv3 from accusations that it's departing from the GPL
> spirit, and I'm trying to find out in what way Tivoization promotes
> the goals you perceive as good for Linux, that make GPLv2
> advantageous. So far, you haven't given any single reason about this.
> You talked about tit-for-tat, you said anti-Tivoization in GPLv3 was
> bad, but you don't connect the dots. Forgive if I get the impression
> that you're just fooling yourself, and misguiding a *lot* of people
> out there in the process.

And failing. You say that the intent and spirit of the GPLv2 is clear if you
read it. I read it and I feel its pretty clear that the only things that the
GPLv2 sought to protect are *EXACTLY* "copying, distribution and
modification".

DRH

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