linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Search results ordered by [date|relevance]  view[summary|nested|Atom feed]
thread overview below | download mbox.gz: |
* Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
  @ 2007-06-22 19:14  6%           ` Alexandre Oliva
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ results
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2007-06-22 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Tso; +Cc: Alan Cox, Al Viro, davids, Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org

On Jun 22, 2007, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:14:23AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Another law of negotiations --- don't goad people into hardening their
>> > positions; it helps neither you nor your interests.
>> 
>> That always depends which side you really support, whether you want to
>> force someone to wedge themselves in an undefendable corner and so on..

> Well yes, I'm assuming that the goal is successfully concluded
> negotiations.

I guess this means you don't believe what I claimed all the way from
the beginning about what I was trying to accomplish.  Not surprising,
really.

Please believe me.  I know I'm a terrible negotiator.  I know I get
people to harden their positions.

Why on earth would I, knowing about these shortcomings of mine, get
into this debate if my goal were to convince you guys, who'd pretty
much all made up your minds months ago, to change anything?  This
would be utterly stupid.  Do you think I'm *that* stupid?

Not just a terrible negotiator, but also a stupid liar? :-)


I know what I was trying to accomplish.  I can even show evidence of
that, which you may very well disbelieve.  When one of the FSF execs,
worriedly wrote to me after reading about a discussion I was allegedly
having with Linus on behalf of the FSF
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linus_Torvalds_to_the_FSF_I_m_damn_fed_up,
he asked me what I was trying to achieve.  On the same day, June 14, I
responded that I'd repeatedly made it clear (but apparently never
clear enough) that I didn't speak for the FSF, and not even for FSFLA,
and that what I was trying to achieve was:

  - set the record straight on my opinion as to whether GPLv3 changes
  the spirit of the GPL (it doesn't, not even in the case of
  Tivoization, as argued in
  http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite

  - dispell myths as to other apparent new obligations that people
  seem to perceive in GPLv3, that were either already present in GPLv2
  or that are necessary to better abide by the spirit of the GPL
  encoded in the preamble

  - offer evidence that whatever perceived losses the Linux (kernel)
  community might suffer from switching to GPLv3 would be from
  non-contributors who are not really willing to abide by the spirit
  of the GPL chosen by the Linux authors, and that it would rather be
  more beneficial for Linux because it would push the exploiters away
  while making room for more actual contributors

Now, since I wrote this, I learned that many Linux authors really
understood the "no further restrictions" provision of GPLv2 in a far
more limited different way, that the spirit in which they licensed
their code departed from the spirit of the GPL.  Nevertheless, I
offered the reasoning I had to offer about potential benefits of
anti-tivoization provisions, because I saw no evidence that anything
but potential negative consequences had been taken into account.  The
same negative consequences that are being brought up WRT the GPLv3
clarifications have repeatedly been brought up against the GPL since
its inception: "Oh my God, this will scare businesses, they will never
use it."  Time is showing these fears were largely exaggerated.  I
hope this will prove true for GPLv3 as well, but my crystal ball is
failing me, even more so because a critical piece of code that would
enable us to tell, in the long run, is, let's say, highly skeptical of
the possibility that prohibiting certain uses can be beneficial in the
long run.


As for why I got into this debate...  Isn't it much simpler to believe
that I got into the debate because Greg KH wrote things about GPLv3
that I understand to be incorrect, and I wanted to set the record
straight on it, than that I, an admittedly unskilled negotiator, was
going to try to "push GPLv3 down your throats"?

And that the most important issue to set the record straight on was
*precisely* about the complaint, signed by him and about half of the
major contributors to Linux, and later supported by other major
contributors, that GPLv3 changed the spirit of the license?  How on
earth can you and others possibly claim with a straight face that
"nobody cares about the spirit"?

The other point I intended to make was the accusation that the FSF was
dividing the community.  This is very unfair.  If the release of a
license that more clearly expresses the intent of part of the
community, and this part of the community adopts it, while another
part of the community rejects it, is this not a sign that the
community is already divided?

Given that part of the community at large, including the FSFes, seeks
better defenses for the freedom of their code, seeks respect for the
"freedom or death" provision already present in GPLv2 (even if
interpreted by some in a narrower sense than it was meant), how is it
fair to complain that they exercise the option to obtain such
defenses, on the grounds that the complaining party might no longer
get the full cooperation of the party who wanted more?

If you're unhappy with GPLv3, why couldn't people who want better
assurance that their code won't be used in ways they don't want be
unhappy that GPLv2 doesn't guarantee these defenses for them?

Don't you see that attacks on GPLv3, suggestions that it's weakened or
dropped, such that these two parts of the community could keep on
cooperating under terms you prefer but they don't, would be just as
bad for others as taking GPLv2 away from you would?

GPLv2 is not going away.  GPLv3 is going to be one more option, and
it's better than GPLv2 for many people.  You can have different goals
than GPLv3 and prefer other licenses over it as much as you want.  I
don't care (*).  But please respect that others disagree with your
goals and want GPLv3, and if this reduces the amount of cooperation
you get from them to achieve your goals, realize that you're also
refusing to cooperate with them to achieve theirs.  This is
unfortunate, but it's not unfair.  What's unfair is to try to shift
the blame onto only one of the parties.

(*) I reserve the right to vocally oppose decisions for non-Free
Software licenses, because I understand that, even though anyone may
have a legal right to make such decisions, it's unethical to make such
decisions, and it prolongs a social problem that I devote a
significant portion of my life to terminate.  I thank you all for your
help in achieving this goal, even if it's involuntary.

> it was really *you* who had no interest in reaching a mutually
> agreeable compromise,

This is an unfair characterization of the situation.  I think both
sides have very little interest in compromising their positions, and
that's fair.  Yesterday, when *I* (!= FSF, != FSFLA) started this
thread with a proposal about mutual compatibility that seemed to me to
be a reasonable compromise, that AFAICT would meet all of the points
that had been brought in the long discussion that preceded, was when I
started an effort of mediating a negotiation between two parties that
AFAICT were not really interested in participating in such a
negotiation.

My suggestion wouldn't work unless both parties made some concessions,
in order to obtain the benefits of mutual cooperation.  No party would
be required to make such concessions.

The only thing that's clear so far is that one person in one party is
not interested in using such an agreement; a person that had already
voiced an opinion against relicensing his contributions to Linux in a
GPLv3-compatible way, not even if Sun were to license the OpenSolaris
kernel under GPLv3.  No surprise here.

I wish I'd got other opinions about this proposal, though, such that I
can make a decision on whether it even makes sense for me to champion
this suggestion towards inclusion in GPLv3.

> at times where one could wonder if he was really sent by Tivo to
> make sure the kernel would stay GPLv2.  :-)

:-) Dammit, how did you guess?  :-)  I even tried to disguise it by
insisting that GPLv2 already prohibits this practice!  :-)

-- 
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}

^ permalink raw reply	[relevance 6%]

* Re: mea culpa on the meaning of Tivoization (was: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3)
  2007-06-17 23:11  6%                                 ` mea culpa on the meaning of Tivoization (was: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3) Alexandre Oliva
@ 2007-06-18  1:15  0%                                   ` Daniel Hazelton
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ results
From: Daniel Hazelton @ 2007-06-18  1:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alexandre Oliva
  Cc: Alan Cox, Ingo Molnar, Linus Torvalds, Greg KH, debian developer,
	david, Tarkan Erimer, linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Chris Friesen,
	Bernd Schmidt, Robin Getz, Rob Landley, Bron Gondwana, Al Viro

On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> >> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
> >>
> >> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker.  It doesn't
> >> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.
> >
> > In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
> > rule changes is a bit impractical
>
> Indeed.  But that's not a legal requirement, it's an economic reason.
>
> "But I need to make a profit" or "But I need to reduce costs" is no
> excluse to disrespect the GPL.
>
> >> Therefore, per the above, FCC doesn't mandate tivoization.
> >
> > I'm sure you can find a definition to sort your goals whatever.
>
> Are you per chance implying that I'm twisting the definition of
> tivoization?
>
>
> You know...  I now believe that would be correct.  I have indeed
> twisted the definition of tivoization, and I'm sorry about that.
> Which is not to say that I agree that the FCC or any other law
> mandates tivoization, or that tivozation is a good thing or that it is
> permitted by GPLv2.  Please read on.
>
>
> After long conversations with RMS about the section on poisoned apples
> and tivoization in my draft article about GPLv3 (Corresponding Sources
> is the name of the section in
> http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite) I had come
> to the conclusion that Tivoization amounted to:
>
>   denying the user of the computer the freedom to run modified
>   versions of the Free Software in it, while retain this ability to
>   oneself.
>
> This understanding of mine had been strengthened by my understanding
> of the wording and the rationale of GPLv3dd3, the wording about
> technical restrictions in the rationales published along with
> GPLv2dd2, and the various speeches in which the term was presented.
>
> Nevertheless, I consulted with him and others highly involved in the
> development of GPLv3 about some of the discussions going on here, and
> got responses over the past few hours that surprised me.  A lot.
>
> So I've just went back to that discussion about my article, and to
> various other cases in which RMS, Eben Moglen and others presented
> Tivoization, the rationales, and so on, and I came to the conclusion
> that I had experienced a subtle but very significant misunderstanding.
>
> I'm now convinced that a more appropriate definition would be:
>
>   denying the user of the computer the freedom to run modified
>   versions of the Free Software in it, by not sharing information as
>   to how it could be accomplished.
>
>
> This difference is very significant, and even more so for this
> discusion, because it contradicts some of what I claimed before about
> forms to use GPLed software where regulations require the user to be
> unable to modify the software.
>
>
> Let me start with an example: I bought a wireless router some time
> ago, and it had a GNU+Linux distribution installed in it.  No source
> code or written offer for source code, though.

Just want to point out that, when I read this, my reaction was "But... That is 
a direct violation of the GPLv2. No specific reading of the license needed."

> Now, if I called the vendor next day and asked for the source code,
> and they responded "sorry, I can't give you that.  I threw it all
> away, such that I wouldn't be able to give it to you.", they would
> still be disrespecting my freedoms, as well as the license, right?

Yes, they would. They are distributing a modification - in the words of the 
GPLv2 "a work based on the work" - without complying with the terms of the 
license.

> You see where I'm going?  Now, if they gave me the source code, but I
> still couldn't install modified versions, because they introduced
> technical measures with the purpose of denying me this possibility,
> then the inability to modify the program wouldn't be caused by
> something like a physical impossibility (something like ROM), but
> rather by an active measure to trample my ability to adapt the program
> and run it for any purpose.
>
> So, if I called them to ask how to install and run modified versions
> of the GPLed programs, and they responded "sorry, I can't give you
> that.  I threw it all away, such that I wouldn't be able to give it to
> you.", they would still be disrespecting my freedoms, as well as the
> license.

Not even the GPLv3dd4 - because they don't have the information anymore 
either. If, however, they still retained the information - in any form - they 
would be violating the GPLv3dd4.

The GPLv2 doesn't make the actions described above - "how to install and 
run" - a license violation.

> The reasons as to why they'd want to disrespect the freedoms don't
> matter.  It could be "making a profit", "complying with the law",
> "abiding by contractual restrictions", anything.  Imposing
> restrictions to the exercise of the freedoms is not in line with the
> spirit of the GPL, as such restrictions render the Software non-Free.

Then anyone using GPLv3'd software to drive WiFi devices, radio (HAM radio) 
networks, etc - in the US, at least - isn't allowed to do such. US Law makes 
some provisions of the GPLv3 illegal to comply with. Thanks to section 6 of 
the GPLv3 that invalidates the rights granted under the license.

>
> The conclusion?  Throwing keys away, or using split-key techniques, as
> I have suggested as potential alternatives to ROM for compliance with
> GPLv3 are not meant to be permitted by GPLv3.  There might be
> practical advantages to compromising and permitting these techniques,
> but that would amount to endorsing disrespect for users' freedoms, and
> more, betraying those who licensed their works under GPLv1+ or v2+
> with an intent to not permit these practices.  I don't think FSF is
> willing to be part of this, and this is how it should be.

Umm... making things more strict will just do more damage. As it is there are 
restrictions on companies that make them unable to comply with the GPL. What 
the GPLv3 has done is take away options they might otherwise have had. If one 
of the goals of the FSF is to force proprietary software into a minority then 
its just done damage to that goal.


DRH

> As for those who didn't mean the GPL this way, they can always grant
> additional permissions, or simply refrain from enforcing the license
> in these cases.
>
>
> I apologize for my terrible misunderstanding, and for spreading it.
>
> Hopefully this message will reach everyone I have misled.
>
> I've tried to Cc: everyone who'd received copies of my mistaken claims
> directly from me.  If I left you out by accident, please holler ;-)



-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.

^ permalink raw reply	[relevance 0%]

* mea culpa on the meaning of Tivoization (was: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3)
  @ 2007-06-17 23:11  6%                                 ` Alexandre Oliva
  2007-06-18  1:15  0%                                   ` Daniel Hazelton
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ results
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2007-06-17 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alan Cox
  Cc: Ingo Molnar, Daniel Hazelton, Linus Torvalds, Greg KH,
	debian developer, david, Tarkan Erimer, linux-kernel,
	Andrew Morton, Chris Friesen, Bernd Schmidt, Robin Getz,
	Rob Landley, Bron Gondwana, Al Viro

On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

>> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
>> 
>> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker.  It doesn't
>> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to itself.

> In practical terms it does since a recall/replacement in the event of
> rule changes is a bit impractical

Indeed.  But that's not a legal requirement, it's an economic reason.

"But I need to make a profit" or "But I need to reduce costs" is no
excluse to disrespect the GPL.


>> Therefore, per the above, FCC doesn't mandate tivoization.

> I'm sure you can find a definition to sort your goals whatever.

Are you per chance implying that I'm twisting the definition of
tivoization?


You know...  I now believe that would be correct.  I have indeed
twisted the definition of tivoization, and I'm sorry about that.
Which is not to say that I agree that the FCC or any other law
mandates tivoization, or that tivozation is a good thing or that it is
permitted by GPLv2.  Please read on.


After long conversations with RMS about the section on poisoned apples
and tivoization in my draft article about GPLv3 (Corresponding Sources
is the name of the section in
http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite) I had come
to the conclusion that Tivoization amounted to:

  denying the user of the computer the freedom to run modified
  versions of the Free Software in it, while retain this ability to
  oneself.

This understanding of mine had been strengthened by my understanding
of the wording and the rationale of GPLv3dd3, the wording about
technical restrictions in the rationales published along with
GPLv2dd2, and the various speeches in which the term was presented.

Nevertheless, I consulted with him and others highly involved in the
development of GPLv3 about some of the discussions going on here, and
got responses over the past few hours that surprised me.  A lot.

So I've just went back to that discussion about my article, and to
various other cases in which RMS, Eben Moglen and others presented
Tivoization, the rationales, and so on, and I came to the conclusion
that I had experienced a subtle but very significant misunderstanding.

I'm now convinced that a more appropriate definition would be:

  denying the user of the computer the freedom to run modified
  versions of the Free Software in it, by not sharing information as
  to how it could be accomplished.


This difference is very significant, and even more so for this
discusion, because it contradicts some of what I claimed before about
forms to use GPLed software where regulations require the user to be
unable to modify the software.


Let me start with an example: I bought a wireless router some time
ago, and it had a GNU+Linux distribution installed in it.  No source
code or written offer for source code, though.

Now, if I called the vendor next day and asked for the source code,
and they responded "sorry, I can't give you that.  I threw it all
away, such that I wouldn't be able to give it to you.", they would
still be disrespecting my freedoms, as well as the license, right?

You see where I'm going?  Now, if they gave me the source code, but I
still couldn't install modified versions, because they introduced
technical measures with the purpose of denying me this possibility,
then the inability to modify the program wouldn't be caused by
something like a physical impossibility (something like ROM), but
rather by an active measure to trample my ability to adapt the program
and run it for any purpose.

So, if I called them to ask how to install and run modified versions
of the GPLed programs, and they responded "sorry, I can't give you
that.  I threw it all away, such that I wouldn't be able to give it to
you.", they would still be disrespecting my freedoms, as well as the
license.

The reasons as to why they'd want to disrespect the freedoms don't
matter.  It could be "making a profit", "complying with the law",
"abiding by contractual restrictions", anything.  Imposing
restrictions to the exercise of the freedoms is not in line with the
spirit of the GPL, as such restrictions render the Software non-Free.


The conclusion?  Throwing keys away, or using split-key techniques, as
I have suggested as potential alternatives to ROM for compliance with
GPLv3 are not meant to be permitted by GPLv3.  There might be
practical advantages to compromising and permitting these techniques,
but that would amount to endorsing disrespect for users' freedoms, and
more, betraying those who licensed their works under GPLv1+ or v2+
with an intent to not permit these practices.  I don't think FSF is
willing to be part of this, and this is how it should be.

As for those who didn't mean the GPL this way, they can always grant
additional permissions, or simply refrain from enforcing the license
in these cases.


I apologize for my terrible misunderstanding, and for spreading it.

Hopefully this message will reach everyone I have misled.

I've tried to Cc: everyone who'd received copies of my mistaken claims
directly from me.  If I left you out by accident, please holler ;-)

-- 
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}

^ permalink raw reply	[relevance 6%]

* Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
  @ 2007-06-15 23:11  7%       ` Alexandre Oliva
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ results
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2007-06-15 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Hazelton
  Cc: Linus Torvalds, Adrian Bunk, Alan Cox, Greg KH, debian developer,
	david, Tarkan Erimer, linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, mingo

On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

> I've looked through the GPLv3 and "tivoization" and DRM are the only things 
> that are functionally different. In reading the GPLv3 *again* today I got the 
> impression that there are more restrictions than grants of rights.

http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite discusses
each one of the significant changes (and some of the insignificant
ones) and shows why each one of them is more "tit-for-tat" than v2.

-- 
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}

^ permalink raw reply	[relevance 7%]

* Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
  @ 2007-06-14 23:09  7%                               ` Alexandre Oliva
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ results
From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2007-06-14 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linus Torvalds
  Cc: Adrian Bunk, Valdis.Kletnieks, Daniel Hazelton, Alan Cox,
	Greg KH, debian developer, david, Tarkan Erimer, linux-kernel,
	Andrew Morton, mingo

On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the 
>> > license, the thing I cared about was that source code be freely available. 
>> 
>> Ok, the MIT license could get you that.  Even public domain could.

> Why do you bother sending out emails that just show that you cannot read 
> or understand?

Because I can't divine what's in your mind, and if you don't make the
points you want to make clear, I may very well fail to understand.

> I want not just the code *I* write to be freely available. I want the 
> modifications that others release that are based on my code to be freely 
> available too!

With the exception of those who choose not to distribute their
changes.  Or who choose to distribute their changes to people who are
not willing to share them with you.  Fair enough.

> That's what the whole "tit-for-tat" thing was all about!

> Doyou even understand what "tit-for-tat" means?

Yes.  I even wrote an article about that.

http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite

> Should I use another phrase? Do you understand the phrase "Quid pro quo"? 

Yes.  It's there in the article as well.  The difference is basically
in attitude.  Tit-for-tat is adversarial (equivalent retaliation),
whereas Quid pro quo is cooperative (a favor for a favor).

> Which is another phrase I've used to explain this over the years.

Yup, I remember that.

>> > I didn't want money, I didn't want hardware, I just wanted the
>> > improvements back.

>> GPL won't get you that.  You want a non-Free Software license.

>> It will only as long as people play along nicely and perceive the
>> benefits of cooperation.  But some players don't.

> You are living in some alternate world. The GPLv2 gives me exactly
> what I looked for.

And in what sense the GPLv3 anti-Tivoization clause doesn't?

In what sense does it give you *less* of what you want?

-- 
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}

^ permalink raw reply	[relevance 7%]

Results 1-5 of 5 | reverse | sort options + mbox downloads above
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-06-09  5:46     Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Tarkan Erimer
2007-06-14  1:40     ` Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-14  2:08       ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-14  2:43         ` Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-14  2:56           ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-14  4:00             ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-06-14 15:20               ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-14 16:01                 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-14 17:49                   ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-14 18:06                     ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-14 19:23                       ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-14 20:09                         ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-14 20:54                           ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-14 21:23                             ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-14 22:31                               ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-14 22:45                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-14 23:09  7%                               ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-15  5:14     ` Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15 20:04       ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-15 21:48         ` Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15 23:11  7%       ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-14 20:48     Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-14 23:50     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-15  4:11       ` Bron Gondwana
2007-06-15  5:38         ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-15  7:23           ` Bron Gondwana
2007-06-15 19:26             ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-16  2:16               ` Bron Gondwana
2007-06-16  8:22                 ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-16 10:31                   ` Bron Gondwana
2007-06-16 17:14                     ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-16 23:32                       ` Bron Gondwana
2007-06-17  1:54                         ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-17 11:20                           ` Alan Cox
2007-06-17 18:33                             ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-17 20:18                               ` Alan Cox
2007-06-17 20:49                                 ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-17 21:21                                   ` Alan Cox
2007-06-17 23:11  6%                                 ` mea culpa on the meaning of Tivoization (was: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3) Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-18  1:15  0%                                   ` Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-22  0:31     how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3? David Schwartz
2007-06-22  1:00     ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-06-22  1:34       ` Al Viro
2007-06-22  4:19         ` Theodore Tso
2007-06-22  9:14           ` Alan Cox
2007-06-22 14:47             ` Theodore Tso
2007-06-22 19:14  6%           ` Alexandre Oliva

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).