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

[Johannes Stezenbach <js@linuxtv.org>]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Johannes Stezenbach <js@linuxtv.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hm, you only talk about people who already use free software,
> > but I tried to make you aware of the importance of
> > _promoting_ free software, i.e. winning new people and
> > companies for the free software idea.
> 
> Aah, I see.  Indeed, I'd missed that aspect.  Sorry about that.
> 
> My take on it is that bringing free loaders in doesn't help us much,
> and bringing them in in a way that they don't learn the essential
> aspects of the community will hurt the community in the long run.
> 
> So they must become aware that respecting others' freedoms is not only
> the right thing to do, from a moral and ethical standpoint, but also
> that this is precisely what enables our community to thrive, and to
> enable everyone to get the best out of the software we cooperate to
> develop.

The keywords here are "learn" and "become aware": It's a process
which takes time, and which requires ongoing communication.

I argue that if you keep the free loaders out, you miss
the chance to communicate with and educate them.
Communication across borders doesn't work well, and you create
a border between the morally "good" and the "bad".

Of course you can't expect that every free loader will
learn and accept the free software philosopy, some just
won't. But to me that's acceptable, and the GPLv2, or indeed
Linus' tit-for-tat interpretation of the GPLv2, is IMHO
sufficient to protect my interests.

> Of course we might get some additional contributions here and there,
> but then more and more users would still be stuck, unable or limited
> in the ways and incentives they have to participate in our community.
> Permitting this is very short-sighted.  It might bring us apparent
> advantages in the short run, but the more such disrespects there are,
> the more there will be, and the fewer users will be able to become
> developers.  In the end, this may kill the whole process, in a tragedy
> of the commons.  In the article linked below, I argue this very point,
> comparing how the demand for respecting users' freedoms is what keeps
> the free-loaders away and makes the GPL the most cost-effective
> license for software development, compared with permissive licenses
> and non-Free licenses.  The very same arguments apply to a comparison
> between a license that permits tivoization and one that doesn't,
> because the latter is more likely to have more contributors to share
> the load, and both equally reduce the likelihood of unmergeable forks.
> http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/papers/free-software/BMind.pdf

I'm not arguing about the GPL, especially not against the GPLv2.

What I'm concerned about is that the language you use trying to
promote the GPLv3 is IMHO anti-promotion of free software.

I believe executives don't read licenses. What they'll read is
the random article about "GPLv3 to outlaw tivoization",
"FSF wants to keep free loaders away" etc.

What is more likely, that they'll go to www.gnu.org to read
and absorb the GNU philosopy in order to become an accepted
member of the free software community, or that they'll decide to
stick with their proprietary RTOS then?


Johannes