gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Oliva: "additional permissions to combine"


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Oliva: "additional permissions to combine"
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:34:25 +0200

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <address@hidden> 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.
> 
> You objected to granting additional permissions.  You have that right,
> per copyright law, and the other developers can then decide between
> not granting an additional permission or removing all the code you
> contributed such that they can.  That's veto.
> 
> Similarly, if someone proposed an additional unambiguous permission to
> tivoize under GPLv2, any developer who objected to it could veto it
> (the alternative being to remove all of his contributions).
> 
> > What really gets me is that you know it.
> 
> Yes.  The only disagreement is that I'm talking "additional permission
> to combine" and you seem to keep understanding "relicensing", even
> though these are very different concepts, with significantly different
> consequences.
> 
> What they have in common is that you can veto either one with your
> status as copyright holder, and that they would both permit some forms
> of cooperation.
> 
> Permission to relicense would provide for one-way cooperation out of
> Linux.  I'm not proposing this.  That would be stupid.  You've already
> decided about it.  I respect that decision.  I even understand why you
> made that decision.
> 
> Relicensing would provide for two-way cooperation, but under terms
> that you don't consider acceptable.  You've pretty much already
> decided not to do it.  I respect that decision.  I even understand why
> you made that decision.
> 
> Permission to combine in both sides would provide for two-way
> cooperation in ways that enable each author to enforce the terms s/he
> chose for his/her own contributions.  This would address many of the
> concerns raised about relicensing, and would increase the amount of
> contributions in kind you can get.
> 
> --
> Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
> FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
> Red Hat Compiler Engineer   address@hidden, gcc.gnu.org}
> Free Software Evangelist  address@hidden, gnu.org}
> -

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'


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]