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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> So your claim is that a user's possibility to scratch her own itches
>> makes no difference whatsoever as to their amount of contributions she
>> is likely to make?

> Exactly.

Hmm, interesting...  Are you doing this just to make it more
interesting, or did you never take Open Source 101? ;-)  Or economy,
game theory, ecology, politics, for that matter?

Do you realize how many contradictions arise from this claim?

A few examples for you.  Let me know if you don't understand why these
contradict this claim, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

How many newbies have patches accepted that they didn't test?

At which point in becoming a Linux developer does one leave behind
this altruistic attitude and becomes moved by self interest only?

How many people you know got to know Linux in their TiVos, took the
Linux sources that TiVo distributes and built it for their own PC?

>> Yes.  And your estimates are way too low too, FWIW.  Any reason why
>> you changed your mind as to the 10% before?

> That 10% was, IIRC, a reference to the potential number of "Hackers" that 
> would own a TiVO. On thinking about it I realized that the number of hackers 
> owning a TiVO would be vanishingly small because of "tivoization".

Aah, ok.

So, you lowered the estimate for the case of a tivoized device, but
then claimed it was the same for an otherwise-identical non-tivoized
device.

Seriously, try 'modprobe logic', you'll like it ;-)

> Wrong. Nobody here needs a "piece by piece" explanation.

Then why do you keep making claims that are not related with either
the part of the argument I'm posing or the full argument I've already
presented?

> So, in the belief that you were intelligent enough to understand
> that, I was providing proof that refutes your argument entirely.

The only proof you provided was that you didn't understand the
argument.

> With a situation as complex as what exists you can't split the
> argument into two and claim that, since "Argument A" is true in the
> "split" argument that it is true when the argument isn't split. This
> holds true for almost all real-world situations.

Which proves you don't understand how logical proofs work.

Let me explain it to you.

First, you need to establish initial premises.  Whether or not they
resemble any similarity with anything else you're thinking of is
irrelevant.  They might even be known to be false, in proof by
contradiction.

Then, you apply logical inference rules to the initial premises, and
establish consequences of the initial premises.

One of these consequences may be what you are trying to prove.  Or,
you may come to a contradiction, and prove that initial premises are
self-contradictory.  Or you may come to no useful conclusion
whatsoever.

> Now, I am not enjoying the discussion anymore.

Understandable.

> I've asked once before - remove me from the CC list.

I'll try to remember to do that.

-- 
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}