On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> > What I care about is that the GPLv3 is a _worse_license_ than GPLv2, >> >> Even though anti-tivoization furthers the quid-pro-quo spirit that you >> love about v2, and anti-tivoization is your only objection to v3?
> You apparently do not understand "quid-pro-quo". > Another way of stating it might be "same for same". > A third way of stating it is "software for software". No, the romans never > said that, but I just did, to make it just more obvious that the whole > point is that you are expected to answer IN KIND! Yes. And this was precisely what meant when I wrote "quid-pro-quo" above. > If you don't understand it after the above, I really can only say: > "You are either terminally stupid, or you're not allowing yourself > to see an obvious argument, because it destroys your world-view". > The latter is very possible. It's a very human thing. /me hands Linus a mirror Serious, what's so hard to understand about: no tivoization => more users able to tinker their formerly-tivoized computers => more users make useful modifications => more contributions in kind ? Sure, there's a downside too: no tivoization => fewer contributions from manufacturers that demand on tivoization My perception is that the first easily dominates the second, and so you are better off without tivoization. > it is also possible that they are of average intelligence, and they > just cannot mentally _afford_ to follow the argument - it destroys > the silyl stories they heard as children, and requires them to think > too hard about the veracity of the source. > PS. Since some people talked about the game theory aspects of > "tit-for-tat", I'd like to point out that what is usually considered an > even *better* strategy than "tit-for-tat" is actually "tit-for-tat with > forgiveness". > In particular, "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is considered better when > there is ambiguity (like "communication difficulties" - does that sound > familiar?) in the encouter. You allow some leeway, and don't always > retaliate! > So the FSF is DOING THE WRONG THING! They are turning "tit-for-tat" not > into "tit-for-tat with forgiveness", but into "tit-for-tat with preemptive > strikes". Wrong. It enables copyright holders to decide whether forgiveness is appropriate, rather than forcing them to forgive. Being forced to forgive deception is not tit-for-tat, and it's a losing strategy. -- 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} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/