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? > > 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. > > 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? > > >> - GPLv3 projects could use code from Linux > > > Oh, rapture! How could one object against such a glorious outcome? > > Exactly ;-) > > Two-way cooperation. I'm told that's good. I was told this was even > desirable. > > 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. > > >> - each copyright holder would still get to enforce the terms s/he > >> chose for his/her own code > > > ... except for that pesky "no added restrictions" part, but hey, who > > cares? > > But see, nobody would be adding restrictions to *your* code. You'd > only be enabling mutual cooperation with projects whose authors > weren't happy about restrictions some licensees could impose on others > (including the authors themselves). > > >> If you were to permit compatibility with GPLv3+ (rather than GPLv3), > >> would you constrain it? Would something like: > >> > >> as long as the later version grants each licensee the same > >> permissions as GPLv2, except for constraining permissions that would > >> enable one licensee to deny other licensees the exercise of the > >> permissions granted by both licenses > > > ... 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? > > > No. Permission denied. > > Your opinion is duly noted. Thanks. > > > 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. > > -- > Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ > FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ > Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} > Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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' _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss