Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
> > >> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
> > >> against a copyright holder, then it can't? That this is the same
> > >> privilege to veto additional permissions that Al Viro has just
> > >> claimed?
> >
> > > You know, I'm rapidly losing any respect for your integrity. The only
> > > "privelege" claimed is that of not relicensing one's contributions.
> >
> > No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
> > licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
> > that's all noise out of not understanding the suggestion.
>
> And that constitutes the change of license. If you *really* do not understand
> that, I'd recommend asking FSF legal folks, especially since you have
> mentioned working on v3. And that, BTW, is far more serious detail than
> your affiliation (or lack thereof) with FSF. Don't forget to bring a copy
> of your posting that had started this thread when you talk to them.
>
> And really, stop digging. Please. YANAL. You are definitely not in
> position to offer any specific changes in v3. Are you seriously expecting
> an ACK on your handwaving, when conditions mentioned in your patch to
> license are not just vague as hell, but are 100% certain to be interpreted
> in conflicting ways as shown by the previous thread?
>
> What are you expecting, anyway? "You guys can link to v3 code if you read
> v2 as prohibiting tivoization, otherwise the code is withdrawn" != "some
> people think that v2 prohibits it, some do not". And somehow I doubt that
> this change of situation will make the latter happy.
>
> Besides, what you are suggesting is logistical nightmare. Somebody in
> v3 project changes borrowed v2 code. Result is pulled back into Linux.
> What is the license of that thing? v3 with additional permission? v2
> with additional permission? What happens if code is then rewritten, with
> some pieces remaining from v3 changes? Oh, you want to deal only with
> entire modules? And then both sides need to be damn careful not to copy
> pieces across the module boundary?
>
> Suppose ZFS _is_ pulled into the tree via that mechanism. Just what
> will happen if some code is massaged a bit, found generically useful
> and lifted into a helper function? Do other filesystems (v2 ones)
> calling it suddenly get into patent violations?
>
> Just what makes you think that anybody would like that kind of "cooperation"?
> -
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
