Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > >> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> >
> > > ... and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions. No.
> >
> > Respecting the wishes of the author of that code. Are you suggesting
> > they should not be respected?
>
> Do piss off. You know full well what I'm saying.
>
> > Anyone who's not happy about it can still take that portion out,
> > unless you accept changes that make this nearly impossible, which I
> > suppose you wouldn't given how strongly you feel about this.
>
> Oh, right. "Anyone who doesn't like proprietary code in the tree
> can just remove it, what's the big deal?" analog. Sorry, doesn't work.
>
> > Without this provision, you wouldn't be able to use the code in the
> > first place, so I don't perceive any loss for anyone. Do you?
>
> Replace GPLv3 with proprietary in your argument and look in archives.
> That had come up quite a few time in such form.
>
> > >> - GPLv3 projects could use code from Linux
> >
> > > Oh, rapture! How could one object against such a glorious outcome?
> >
> > Exactly ;-)
>
> Look up "sarcasm".
> >
> > Two-way cooperation. I'm told that's good. I was told this was even
> > desirable.
>
> Again, replace v3 with proprietary and reread your argument.
>
> > I can see that one-way cooperation could be perceived as unfair, even
> > if permissions granted by GPLv3 are all granted by GPLv2 as well.
>
> .. but not the other way round. So in effect we get a change of kernel
> license, GPLv3 people *do* *not* get any license changes on their projects.
> And you are saying that it's not one-way?
>
> > > ... except for that pesky "no added restrictions" part, but hey, who
> > > cares?
> >
> > But see, nobody would be adding restrictions to *your* code.
>
> Liar. I'm sorry, but I do _not_ believe that you are honestly clueless
> about GPL to that extent, especially given your claims of participation
> of v3 development. What you are saying is "but your code will be still
> available under GPLv2". Yes, it will. So it will be if e.g. SCO pulls
> it into proprietary codebase. And you know damn well that this _is_
> against the intentions of the license. Besides, changes to code should
> be available under the same license. The first change in v3 project
> affecting both imported v2 code and native v3 one will create a big problem.
>
> > > ... because it's For The Benefit Of User Freedoms!!!
> >
> > It is either way. Do you deny that tivoization also benefits one
> > user/licensee? And in detriment of others, while at that?
>
> You know, we have another wanker here starting another thread from
> hell - one about allowing stable driver ABI, to make the life of
> proprietary modules more convenient. The funny thing is, it's _also_
> said to be for the benefit of users. I.e. it's basically an equivalent
> of "Will somebody think of chiiildrun!!!?!?!?"
>
> > > No. Permission denied.
> >
> > Your opinion is duly noted. Thanks.
>
> It's not an opinion. It's a lack of permission to distribute GPLv2 code
> under conditions violating its license.
>
> > > If somebody wants to dual-license *others* code,
> >
> > This is not about dual licensing at all, and this is not about others
> > code. This is a decision you would have to make in order to enable
> > cooperation between projects.
> >
> > If you don't want to make this decision, that's fine. Nobody can be
> > forced to cooperate. This works in both directions.
> >
> > Don't try to frame those who want to respect and defend users'
> > freedoms as uncooperative. This is *your* decision, and your decision
> > alone.
>
> Ah. Got it. Nice spin. "Your license doesn't allow to put your code
> under the license we want, you are mean and uncooperative! Giiiimmeeee!!!
> Or be condemned as a Bad Person and an Enemy of Freedom"
> -
regards,
alexander.
--
"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."
-- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply'
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
