Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Viro: "I'd recommend asking FSF legal folks"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Al Viro wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
> > >> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
> > >> against a copyright holder, then it can't?  That this is the same
> > >> privilege to veto additional permissions that Al Viro has just
> > >> claimed?
> >
> > > You know, I'm rapidly losing any respect for your integrity.  The only
> > > "privelege" claimed is that of not relicensing one's contributions.
> >
> > No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
> > licenses.  I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
> > that's all noise out of not understanding the suggestion.
> 
> And that constitutes the change of license.  If you *really* do not understand
> that, I'd recommend asking FSF legal folks, especially since you have
> mentioned working on v3.  And that, BTW, is far more serious detail than
> your affiliation (or lack thereof) with FSF.  Don't forget to bring a copy
> of your posting that had started this thread when you talk to them.
> 
> And really, stop digging.  Please.  YANAL.  You are definitely not in
> position to offer any specific changes in v3.  Are you seriously expecting
> an ACK on your handwaving, when conditions mentioned in your patch to
> license are not just vague as hell, but are 100% certain to be interpreted
> in conflicting ways as shown by the previous thread?
> 
> What are you expecting, anyway?  "You guys can link to v3 code if you read
> v2 as prohibiting tivoization, otherwise the code is withdrawn" != "some
> people think that v2 prohibits it, some do not".  And somehow I doubt that
> this change of situation will make the latter happy.
> 
> Besides, what you are suggesting is logistical nightmare.  Somebody in
> v3 project changes borrowed v2 code.  Result is pulled back into Linux.
> What is the license of that thing?  v3 with additional permission?  v2
> with additional permission?  What happens if code is then rewritten, with
> some pieces remaining from v3 changes?  Oh, you want to deal only with
> entire modules?  And then both sides need to be damn careful not to copy
> pieces across the module boundary?
> 
> Suppose ZFS _is_ pulled into the tree via that mechanism.  Just what
> will happen if some code is massaged a bit, found generically useful
> and lifted into a helper function?  Do other filesystems (v2 ones)
> calling it suddenly get into patent violations?
> 
> Just what makes you think that anybody would like that kind of "cooperation"?
> -
 
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'