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

Andrew McKay
2007-06-20T16:52:16Z

> No, I'm not. You can say tivoization is *good* however much you like.
> This doesn't dispute in any way my claim that no tivoization would be
> *better*, that you'd get contributions from the people that, because
> of tivoization, don't feel compelled to develop and contribute,
> because they can't use the fruits of their efforts in the device where
> they would be most useful for them.
>

I know I'm jumping in to this conversation in the middle and a few days behind,
but that's one of the biggest fallacies in the open source communities. First
of all more system developers contribute to the community than end users do.
Secondly GPLv3 will cause companies like TIVO, router companies, security
companies to not adopt Linux as an operating system, because they can't secure
their system. Placing code in a ROM so they can't upgrade their own systems is
an absolute joke, and not a viable option. In the end, GPLV3 will cause less
contribution to the Linux Kernel community. Systems developers won't be choosing
Linux and directly contributing to Kernel development while developing their
product. Fewer products on the market will use linux, so even end users, who
really don't contribute a lot, won't be contributing either.

I'm not going to address whether GPLv3 changed the spirit of GPLv2, but saying
that licensing the Linux Kernel under GPLv3 will result in more contributions is
absolute BS.

Andrew McKay
Iders Inc.