From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753430AbXFTVKu (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:10:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751175AbXFTVK2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:10:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52828 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750945AbXFTVK0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:10:26 -0400 To: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , Bernd Schmidt , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 References: <200706190221.09067.dhazelton@enter.net> <200706190258.56955.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070620171720.GW10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat OS Tools Group Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:07:49 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20070620171720.GW10008@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> (Lennart Sorensen's message of "Wed\, 20 Jun 2007 13\:17\:20 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jun 20, 2007, lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to >> match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction) >> >> >> Vendor doesn't care about tivoizing, their business works the same >> either way. > Not true. A PVR that can record pay per view and encrypted digital > channels You see the "not intended to match TiVo" above? Do you see that it's pointless to dispute antecedents of a logical inference rule, if you don't know what role it plays in the full argument? Consider that this could be a proof by contradiction to realize how pointless your objection is, no matter how true the point you state is. It bears no relationship with the argument at hand, and you said so yourself, by disputing the assumptions of the inference, rather than its conclusions. Assumptions that were not even used to arrive at the conclusions, BTW. >> Can you point out any flaw in this reasoning, or can we admit it as >> true? > Certainly fails to be true. Once you change the conditions to twist whatever else you want, then you arrive at different conclusions. What's the surprise here? What you're doing is like, after getting an argument like this: assumptions: 1+1 = 2 2+1 = 3 provable consequence: 1+1+1 = 3 responding: no, no, that's wrong! the right argument is: assumptions: 3+4 = 7 2+1 = 3 provable consequence: 2+1+4 = 7 therefore the answer is 5, not 3! You see how illogical this is? It doesn't matter whether your argument is correct. It just doesn't dispute the proposition at hand. -- 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}