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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 17, 2007, david@lang.hm wrote:

> you argue that it is evil for tivo to produce a pice of hardware that
> they can modify and the user can't

s/evil/unethical/, because I understand that denying people the
ability to enjoy the four freedoms of Free Software is unethical, and
accepting such restrictions is immoral.

> but you then argue that it's a good thing for the FSF to produce a
> license that they can modify and others can't

A License is not software.  The ethical and moral principles involved
are different.


I can see why I may have misled you into this, with the argument that
patching and fixing bugs and upgrading licenses is as important as
doing that to the software.

But a license, and in particular the GPL, is not only a legal
document, it's also a political statement.


You'll see that articles, speeches, etc, published by Richard Stallman,
by the FSF, by myself, and by many other people who defend Free
Software on moral grounds don't grant permissions for people to enjoy
the four freedoms.


You don't want people to take your opinions and modify them.

Since literary works, music, movies, paintings, and other
copyrightable works, don't quite have the same dual nature of software
(both a form of expression and a tool to perform technical jobs),
demanding the four freedoms for all of them is not only unnecessary,
it may actually be counter-productive.

You'll see that even the GNU Free Documentation License refrains from
insisting that the entire work be modifiable.  Heck, even the GPL has
some restrictions on what you can change.


So, yes, the situation is different, and it smells like "it's not
fair", but to me this is very clearly comparing apples and oranges.


Consider it just for a moment longer:

I write software from scratch.  It's all mine.  I want to publish it.
I need a license.  I look at the GPL.  It doesn't say what I want.
Hey, I think, it would be nice if I could modify it such that it said
what I wanted.  Hmm, I'd have to ask the FSF, and they might say no.
I'll be better off using some other license.  I know I can.


I put together a computer using various pre-existing hardware and
software components.  Some of them demand me to respect other users'
freedoms.  I want to sell it.  Some components don't do what I want.
Cool, I can modify them, and I don't even have to ask the owner for
permission.  I know I can.  But hey, I think, it would be nice if I
could stop users from changing the software in this computer.  I'd be
better off if the software had some other license, but I'll take the
risk and hope this will do.


I bought a computer containing various hardware and software
components.  The computer doesn't quite do what I want.  Hey, I think,
it would be nice if I could modify it such that it did what I wanted.
I know I can.  But, heck, after I made the change, this thing won't
boot any more, and I can't figure out what I did wrong.  Aah, the
manufacturer prohibits me from running modified versions.  I don't
think they can or should, but there's nothing I can do about it.  I'm
stuck.  Oh well...


> in the second case the FSF is trying to convince everyone that anyone
> who produced code under the fist license, but didn't give the FSF the
> ability to relicense their code to whatever the FSF wants are
> misguided fools who just don't understand what they are doing.

I don't understand why you think the FSF is doing this.

As for myself (I'm not FSF, I'm not even a member of the FSF), I'm not
doing this, and I hope you'll agree that I'm not.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}