On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers. > >> > > >> > The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people. > >> > >> Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisions are > >> *the* objectionable issue about GPLv3 for those of you who dislike > >> GPLv3, this is circular reasoning: > >> > >> anti-tivoization is bad > >> => we reject licenses with it > >> => there are fewer developers willing to develop with such licenses > >> => anti-tivoization is bad > > > > The logic is close to: > > > > => License forbids X > > => developer has requirement for X in license, can't add to project > > => License forbidding X is bad > > I'm not sure it was clear that '=>' was meant as logical implication. > Read it as "therefore". > > It's actually funny that what your inference sequence (in spite of the > missing initial operand) rings so true about my impressions about some > of the reactions I'm getting here. > > GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for > tivoization in the license, therefore GPLv3 forbidding tivoization > is bad. > > :-)
However, my argument is straight logic, nothing "circular" about it. :) Replacing "X" in my logic path above with "tivoization" and "license" with "GPLv3", as you've done, does produce a valid chain of logic. > >> > I haven't really seen a single one. Last I did the statistic, I asked > >> > the top ~25-30 kernel developers about their opinion. NOT A SINGLE ONE > >> > preferred the GPLv3. > >> > >> Wow, that's a really big sample among all Free Software and Open > >> Source developers out there. And not even a little bit biased at > >> that. > > Sorry that I missed the <irony> markers. > > > Yes, the sample could be considered "biased" - jst as a sample taken > > among the GCC developers could be considered "biased" towards the > > other end of the spectrum. > > FWIW, I haven't taken such a sample, because I know my network of > contacts would likely make it statistically useless. I'd not try to > make an argument based on that. FWIW the Linux Kernel shouldn't be as homogeneous a population as it is. I'd expect it with an FSF run project, because they require copyright assignment in order to participate, but with a project like Linux, where everyone maintains the copyright to their contributions, should be a hell of a lot less homogeneous than Linus' numbers make it seem. <snip> > > Statistically the number of people that will even think of modifying > > the code running on a "tivoized" device is minute > > Wait a minute, these figures you made up are for the tivoized hardware > (no changes allowed to the GPLed software in it), or for the > non-tivoized hardware (changes allowed to the GPLed software in it)? Actually, any generic "TiVO"-like hardware - whether it is tivoized or not. Admittedly the numbers are significantly different for PC's (and other types of general purpose computing devices). > > those who will contribute them back: 38 (25%) > > Regardless of what you meant, this is 38 developers *on top* of > however many the company pays to work on that, unless you're jumping > the gun and spoiling the multi-part argument. 38ppm is a fairly small amount, regardless. > > What you are arguing is that people should abandon > > I'm not arguing any such thing. Where's any such argument above? > > At this point, I'm only comparing a tivoized device with a > non-tivoized device. Nothing but it. You've been making the argument the entire time you've been arguing that the "anti-tivoization" language in the GPLv3 is necessary. I think I'd rather see a guaranteed increase of developers - even if it is only 10 - rather than hoping that the potential pool of 38 actually follows through. Wouldn't you? DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - 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/
