[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    On 18/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <> wrote:
    > On Jun 17, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <> wrote:
    > > On 17/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <> wrote:
    > > [snip]
    > >> 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
    > > I have to disagree.
    > Your analysis stopped at the downside of prohibiting tivoization. You
    > didn't analyze the potential upsides,

    Maybe that's because I don't really see any up sides.

    As I see it, if we prevent tivoization, then the most likely outcome
    will be that a very few number of vendors will switch to ROM based
    solutions or similar (everyone lose, both vendor and user), a few
    vendors that currently tivoize hardware may open up their hardware but
    I doubt that will be very many, and the vast majority of vendors will
    move to *BSD or proprietary software since they simply can't or won't
    open up their hardware.

    So no, I don't think there are any upsides. We'll lose a huge number
    of developers, testers and users inside the business comunity and
    we'll lose a lot of exposure (like "hey, did you know TiVO actually
    runs Linux inside? Isn't that cool?)... Gaining a few hobyists at the
    expense of driving a huge number of businesses away from GPL'ed
    software does not look like an upside to me.

    >so you may indeed come to
    > different conclusions, and they may very well be wrong.
    Just because I come to a different conclusion than you doesn't
    nessesarily make it wrong.

    > It's very human to look only at the potential downside of an action
    > and conclude it's a bad action.
    And you believe yourself to be immune to that - right?

    > > Let's say that for some reason I don't want the end users of my
    > > device to tinker with the software inside my device.
    > Ok, keep the *want* in mind. This is very important.
    No, it is not. When I wrote that I meant "don't want" as in "really
    don't want to since it'll destroy our business" or "really really
    don't want to since we would be breaking the law" etc.

    > > Now I think you can agree to these things being positive:
    > Yes, even if I'd phrase them slightly differently.
    > > The only downside is that the end user purchasing the device can't
    > > install modified versions of the software on it.
    > And therefore you severely limit the number of end users who might
    > turn into contributors because of self interest in hacking the device
    > to suit their needs.
    Most people don't care about hacking their devices, and of the few who
    do only a subset have the skill and only a subset of those will
    actually contribute anything back. This is a *small* set of people and
    gaining that small set at the expense of losing the large number of
    contributers from various companies doesn't make sense to me.

    > > Now let's try it in a GPLv3 universe. Since I can no longer create my
    > > device without having to allow the end user to install modified
    > > software on it
    > False assumption. You can create the device using GPLv3 software in
    > it.

    Not as long as I want to prevent the user from tampering with it, no.

    >So your acccounting of necessary downsides is only one of the
    > possibilities. The other possibility would be to have the program in
    > ROM, of course, which would come with a completely different set of
    > downsides, but that would retain all of the "these things being
    > positive" you mentioned above.
    But do you really expect a vendor to put a device on the market where
    they also lock themselves out of upgrading it and releasing new
    software for it? That's just rediculous.

    > And, remember, since you merely don't *want* the end user of the
    > device to tinker with the software, you have the option to do let them
    > do that.
    See above.

    > And, if you do, they may find in themselves reasons and incentives to
    > change the software in the device, and the improvements are likely to
    > get back to the community and thus back to you. Everybody wins.
    For a few select individuals that may be true. But for the majority of
    the population it won't mean a thing.

    > This is the upside that you left out from your analysis, and from
    > every other analysis that set out to "prove" that anti-tivoization is
    > bad that I've seen so far.
    I'm sorry, but I don't think it holds water.

    > It appears that people are so concerned about whatever little they
    > might lose from requiring respect for users' freedoms that they don't
    > even consider what they might win, and that they *would* win if at
    > least some of the vendors were to make an choice more favorable to
    > their users and the community.

    Contrary to you, I don't believe any significant number of companies
    will do that. It's simply better for business to just use other
    software in that case.

    Jesper Juhl <>
    Don't top-post
    Plain text mails only, please
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-20 22:47    [W:0.044 / U:9.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site