Comment Re:Unfortunately? (Score 1) 82
I'm just pointing out that you are acting like a sociopath. A license (contract) is supposed to be a "meeting of minds"; perverting the intention of the contract terms is a sociopathic thing to do. Not ad hominem -- merely an observation.
Because as he has made clear many many times that's all that matters, what the authors of the GPLv2 think about that or what you think they intended the license for has no relevance whatsoever.
To whom?
So? Clearly the authors of the GPLv2 didn't consider it either or they didn't care about Tivoization at all.
Clearly. If they didn't care theyd' never have released a GPLv3 specifically to close that loop hole in what they wrote vis-a-vis their intent. Oh wait... they did release a GPLv3. Guess they cared.
if the license explicitly placed restrictions on the use of the code outside of contributing it back then the GPLv2 would not have been used because Linus has made clear many times that it is about "tit for tat" and nothing more.
Its impossible to say what Linus would have done at 22 years old in 1992 if the GPL had been slightly differently worded. Whether he'd have cared about an anti-tivoization clause at the time... you'll maybe recall that Linux 0.01 through 0.11 was released under a license that forbade commercial use in 1991.
He switched to the GPL in 1992. Your indulging in some serious mythologizing to even suggest he had such an extremely nuanced understanding and appreciation for a license that had only been around for a couple years. (GPL v1 was released in 89), and GPLv2 was barely 6 months old when Linus adopted it.
You are saying the same person that you argue thought tivoization was a good thing when he selected GPL was against any commercial use at all just a few months earlier? That doesn't add up. Unless maybe, just maybe Linus' stance on the license has evolved and become a lot more nuanced over the last 20+ years.
So what is your point?
1) That Linus in 2007 isn't really the same kid that picked GPLv2 for his experimental kernel project in 1992.
2) That Linus in 1992 wasn't really making pro-tivoization arguments in 1992 when he selected that license.