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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:14:49AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I'm not trying to impose anything.  I'm not pushing anything.  I'm
>> defending the GPLv3 from accusations that it's departing from the GPL
>> spirit, and I'm trying to find out in what way Tivoization promotes
>> the goals you perceive as good for Linux, that make GPLv2
>> advantageous.  So far, you haven't given any single reason about this.
>> You talked about tit-for-tat, you said anti-Tivoization in GPLv3 was
>> bad, but you don't connect the dots.  Forgive if I get the impression
>> that you're just fooling yourself, and misguiding a *lot* of people
>> out there in the process.

> Give.  Me.  A.  Break.

> Section 6 is inherently broken.

You mean the bits against Tivoization in it, right.

You point out reasons you dislike the particular wording (good, can
you relay them to gplv3.fsf.org, please?), but nowhere do you show
where such provisions hamper the tit-for-tat goal that Linus likes
about GPLv2 and claims to be the reason he chose v2.  In fact, I've
shown evidence that anti-Tivoization increases this tit-for-tat.
Still, v2 is preferred over v3 under these grounds.  How can it be?

> And BTW, you've been told just that about an hour before you've sent that
> mail.

Yup.  I got your opinion.  Now I got it twice, and others got it
once.  How about others' opinions?

And, more importantly, how does that provision conflict with your
personal goals WRT Linux?

-- 
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}