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

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without
> achieving any of my goals.

What do you expect, when you tried to entertain a legal picture of the 
GPLv2 that even the FSF counsel doesn't believe in?

I will state one more time: I think that what Tivo did was and is:

 (a) perfectly legal wrt the GPLv2 (and I have shown multiple times why 
     your arguments don't hold logical water - if you actually followed 
     them yourself, you wouldn't be using a redhat.com email address!)

 (b) not just legally right, but perfectly morally right too (it wasn't 
     some underhanded "trick" thing - it was following the spirit _and_ 
     the letter of the law)

 (c) the only reasonable thing many companies *can* do in the face of laws 
     and regulations and entities like the RIAA/MPAA.

and you should admit that the fact that the FSF counsel says that it 
couldn't sue Tivo in the US, it means that while my standpoint may not be 
the _only_ possible one, I'm certainly not "confused" about (a) above.

The (b) and (c) points are not "legal" points, they are about the fact 
that quite often, morality and practicality are independent of legality, 
and you should never see law as being the *only* thing that matters. So 
the reason I bring them up is that it wasn't just "legally ok", they also 
had good *reasons* for doing it, and there was no hanky-panky about it!

In fact, I consider Tivo one of the good guys, because they were one of 
the few people that had things like the GPLv2 actually printed out and 
clearly stated IN THE MAIN PAPER MANUAL. In the very first version of 
their box. Without anybody twisting any arms at all. 

IOW, Tivo really did everything right. I personally think that they were 
even classy about it.

And that's my opinion. THINK about that for a moment. THINK about the fact 
that I am the original copyright holder in the main software project they 
used, and that I state that as neither having ever gotten paid _or_ owning 
any stock what-so-ever in Tivo. 

Dammit, if I cannot say that I think what they did was fine, who can?

So pause there for a moment, and really *think* about the above. Stop 
seeing Tivo as "the devil". 

[ Wait a few seconds here, thinking! ]

Now, we both agree that GPLv3 would change the situation wrt Tivo, don't 
we?

[ Wait a few more seconds here, thinking about what that means, taking the 
  above into consideration ]

..so given that I think that what Tivo did is *fine*, the GPLv3 "solution" 
is not a solution at all, is it?

Quite the reverse. It's a unnecessary restriction that doesn't actually 
solve anything at all, it just adds problems of its own.

And yet you claim that you cannot understand why I (and others) would 
consider the GPLv3 to be a "worse" license. It is *obviously* worse to 
anybody who thought that "Tivoization" wasn't a problem in the first 
place!

.. but I guess you'll ignore that argument, the way you ignored all the 
other ones too, and continue to blame your lack of understanding on me 
being "confused" about the issue.

			Linus