[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Oliva: "Two-way cooperation"

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Oliva: "Two-way cooperation"
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:18:27 +0200

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <> 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
> FSF Latin America Board Member
> Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{,}
> Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{,}
> -


"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]