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

["Kevin Bowling" <lkml@kev009.com>]

> On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > I just want software back. I think it is *wrong* for me to ask for
> > anything else. It's literally my personal "moral choice": I think the
> > hardware manufacturers need to make their _own_ choices when it comes to
> > _their_ designs.
>
> >  - I think that *technical*quality* is more important than *quantity*.
>
> This argument fails to make the point you're trying to make.

No, it has been countered many times and you are simply proving your ignorance.

>   you trade the potential contributions of all those users for the
>   contributions of tivoizers, apparently assuming that all tivoizers
>   would simply move away from the community, taking their future
>   contributions away from your community, rather than moving to a
>   position in which you'd get not only the contributions from the
>   company itself, but also from all their users
>
> and you say "oh, I don't care about quantity, I care about quality",
> as if this somehow related with the above.

Being strictly pragmatic - what makes you think TiVoland is some
fledgling grounds of /expert kernel developers/ that are otherwise
deprived of contributing, unless they can illegally modify their TiVo?

Under GPLv2, we have the kernel modifications and can include them in
our software.  If you don't agree with TiVo, purchase an open product.
 Download their kernel source and use it on your open product.  Pure
consumerism and capitalism at work.

The GPLv3 is a solution in search of a problem.  Worse, it creates
problems outside the grasp of your understanding.

> Just do the math.  Hypothetically, Linux goes GPLv3, without
> permission to tivoize.  TiVo has to decide among:
>
> - switching to another kernel, no further contributions from them
Bad for us, bad for users.
> - sticking with old version, no further usable contributions from them
Bad for us, bad for users.
> - switching to ROM, still the same contributions from TiVo
Bad for users.
> - no more tivoization, contributions from TiVo and users

Bad for us, bad for users.  Legitimate laws and practices require that
certain devices not be modified by end users.  Therefore TiVo fails
and contributions cease.

> So, you see, in no case do you get more contributors while at the same
> time losing TiVo's quality contributions.

No.  Outside of this FSF {academic,religious} diatribe, in the real
world, things aren't as you see them.  The fact is that these people
can get the code and contribute.  It just won't run on TiVo.  So don't
buy TiVo but use the code.  Problem solved, free software in action.

> > In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread how you can
> > follow the GPLv3 by making the TECHNICALLY INFERIOR choice of using a ROM
> > instead of using a flash device.
>
> Yes.  This is one option that doesn't bring any benefits to anyone.
> It maintains the status quo for users and the community, but it loses
> the ability for the vendor to upgrade, fix or otherwise control the
> users.  Bad for the vendor.

And users.  Don't spin the facts.

You are advocating things which hurt the end user, which the "Spirit"
should seek to help.  The GPLv3 is here to stroke the FSF ego because
they don't like how somebody has legally found a way to use free
software in a way they don't agree with.  Sort of like dynamite being
used violently...