From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752850AbXFNCNg (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:13:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751033AbXFNCN3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:13:29 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.229]:46287 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750944AbXFNCN2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:13:28 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ZGQLhbjAx3w1FnwUPaKMscrbZvldE/SRjDHkMp5BGyEu+jF3w6cZlgis/OBEaqubXOyxjLHoMZwRaT4lF0viHFUtm8lqDy/zcYdm5GPkUWv3S0QWrKIrQcD8TJUaD/u6o9GVbpe58+0pV4VPy1BFHGwKfaKuSMezHDBCqCRi0FA= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:43:26 +0530 From: "Satyam Sharma" To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?=" Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Alexandre Oliva" , "Greg KH" , "debian developer" , "david@lang.hm" , "Tarkan Erimer" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <20070613233541.GA27689@lazybastard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <466BCBBC.90305@netone.net.tr> <20070610160531.GA12179@kroah.com> <20070612184110.GB7980@kroah.com> <20070613233541.GA27689@lazybastard.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [ Gmail did horrible things to the original post by giving it a base64 content transfer encoding, so majordomo@vger dropped it. It's just an off-topic digression, but I cared enough to resend anyway, fwiw. ] On 6/14/07, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Wed, 13 June 2007 14:33:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and > > you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid. > > One could even add that "tit-for-tat" appears to be the best strategy > in game theory for continuous runs of the prisoners dilemma. Tit-for-tat is the best *deterministic* strategy when playing iterated prisoner's dilemma. But note that "deterministic" and "rational" are not adjectives that go well with "humans", and most real-world (social) situations are noisy environments -- miscommunication and misunderstandings are the usual noise. A double-D noise perceived by any player would throw a tit-for-tat-playing couple into a perennial spiral of D's, for example, which is clearly not a Pareto-efficient solution for either. > At times I > wonder why game theory isn't taught in schools yet - it might shorten > discussions like these. Yes, and no. Yes - for teaching game theory (and its social relevance) in schools; and add behavioral economics to this list :-) No - it doesn't shorten discussions, however. And it shouldn't either. Human / social situations are complex, Jörn; tit-for-tat can win computer contests, for example, but it's not a behaviour one person would find as entirely agreeable in another. Satyam