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

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

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > "More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More 
> > Contributions"
> 
> No, seriously.  Linus is disputing the equation above, dismissing my
> various attempts to show it to him, whenever it appears in teh context
> of tivoization, apparently because it doesn't match his moral belief
> that tivoization ought to be permitted on his moral grounds.

No. Linus is not AT ALL disputing the equation above.

But you are too f*cking stupid to admit that I *accepted* the

 - "More developers" == "More contributions" == good

equation, but I was claiming that your *other* part was totally broken.

You try to claim that the GPLv3 causes "More developers", and that, my 
idiotic penpal, is just crazy talk that you made up. 

But since you cannot follow a logical argument, and cannot make one up 
on your own, you instead make up some *other* argument, and try (like 
above) to try to say that I made that claim.

The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers. 

The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people. 

Face it, the "open source" crowd is the *bigger* crowd. The FSF crowd is 
vocal and opinionated, but it's largely made up of people who _talk_ more 
than they actually _code_. 

Hot air doesn't make the world go round. Real code does.

Look at the kernel developers who claim that the GPLv2 is better. Not just 
me. Then look at the people who actually GET THINGS DONE. 

There's a big overlap there.

Now, look at the people who try to sell the GPLv3 as the best thing since 
sliced bread. How many of those are people who actually get things *done*?

I haven't really seen a single one. Last I did the statistic, I asked the 
top ~25-30 kernel developers about their opinion. NOT A SINGLE ONE 
preferred the GPLv3.

So I have actual *numbers* on my side. What do you have, except for a 
history of not actually understanding my arguments?

		Linus