Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Andrew McKay]

> No, I'm not.  You can say tivoization is *good* however much you like.
> This doesn't dispute in any way my claim that no tivoization would be
> *better*, that you'd get contributions from the people that, because
> of tivoization, don't feel compelled to develop and contribute,
> because they can't use the fruits of their efforts in the device where
> they would be most useful for them.

I know I'm jumping in to this conversation in the middle and a few days behind, 
but that's one of the biggest fallacies in the open source communities.  First 
of all more system developers contribute to the community than end users do. 
Secondly GPLv3 will cause companies like TIVO, router companies, security 
companies to not adopt Linux as an operating system, because they can't secure 
their system.  Placing code in a ROM so they can't upgrade their own systems is 
an absolute joke, and not a viable option.  In the end, GPLV3 will cause less 
contribution to the Linux Kernel community. Systems developers won't be choosing 
Linux and directly contributing to Kernel development while developing their 
product.  Fewer products on the market will use linux, so even end users, who 
really don't contribute a lot, won't be contributing either.

I'm not going to address whether GPLv3 changed the spirit of GPLv2, but saying 
that licensing the Linux Kernel under GPLv3 will result in more contributions is 
absolute BS.

Andrew McKay
Iders Inc.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/