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

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

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Viro: "Do piss off. You know full well wha


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Viro: "Do piss off. You know full well what I'm saying."
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:20:10 +0200

Al Viro wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <address@hidden> 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'


reply via email to

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