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
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
