Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 29, 2006 06:48 AM
It doesn't matter much because GPL v3 is actually more restrictive than v2, despite the FSF's rhetoric about "ensuring freedom". So any user who cares about the differences between the licenses, i.e. one that tends to modify and possibly redistribute the code, would prefer (and choose) the v2 license. BTW this isn't just a few edge cases - many software and content providers, even those not using DRM at the moment, would hate to give up the option of ever using DRM for their products or services in the future, because piracy and freeloading are so widespread. They don't consider DRM to be an unmitigated evil, it's just an awkward fact of life like taxes.
Bottom line is that it's a bad idea for the FSF to piggyback their pet peeve (DRM) onto the new license, regardless of whether Torvalds is willing or able to upgrade Linux from GPL v2. They should consider splitting off the DRM into an enhancement that all GNU projects will adopt, not necessarily all projects that choose the GPL. Otherwise they'll probably get some high profile projects buying in but I suspect we'll eventually see others (aside from Linux) opting out and sticking with v2.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Outvoted?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 29, 2006 06:48 AMBottom line is that it's a bad idea for the FSF to piggyback their pet peeve (DRM) onto the new license, regardless of whether Torvalds is willing or able to upgrade Linux from GPL v2. They should consider splitting off the DRM into an enhancement that all GNU projects will adopt, not necessarily all projects that choose the GPL. Otherwise they'll probably get some high profile projects buying in but I suspect we'll eventually see others (aside from Linux) opting out and sticking with v2.
#