Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on September 26, 2006 05:47 PM
A little from <a href="http://applications.linux.com/applications/06/09/22/2340202.shtml?tid=51&tid=41" title="linux.com">this previous related article.</a linux.com>
"To be honest: This statement was one of the worst things to come out of the Linux developer community for a long while, and it definitely cost them a lot of respect they earned with their technical work"
"The criticisms some kernel developers have towards GPL3 draft suggest they don't really agree with the objective of GPL, promoting the 4 freedoms for the end user."
Yeap, certainly seems that way.
"Since the kernel is the heart of Linux, and since its licensing seems to prohibit the adoption of v3, perhaps it would be better if the FSF, et al., stopped beating a dead horse."
No way. The FSF should, and will, complete the GPLv3. Then, developers can choose to license their work as they see fit.
The first thing is to get the wording of the GPLv3 correct, so that its meaning is nailed down. As in all things legal, the wording is of paramount importance. Public discussion is extremely valuable in getting it right. The GPLv3 should clearly include fixes for FSF concerns about DRM. In the end, if you, as a developer, do not like GPLv3, then simply use another license.
If the GPLv3 turns out to be a good license, the Linux kernel will eventually "fall" under it.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Linux kernel will eventually "fall" under GPLv3
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 26, 2006 05:47 PM"To be honest: This statement was one of the worst things to come out of the Linux developer community for a long while, and it definitely cost them a lot of respect they earned with their technical work"
"The criticisms some kernel developers have towards GPL3 draft suggest they don't really agree with the objective of GPL, promoting the 4 freedoms for the end user."
Yeap, certainly seems that way.
"Since the kernel is the heart of Linux, and since its licensing seems to prohibit the adoption of v3, perhaps it would be better if the FSF, et al., stopped beating a dead horse."
No way. The FSF should, and will, complete the GPLv3. Then, developers can choose to license their work as they see fit.
The first thing is to get the wording of the GPLv3 correct, so that its meaning is nailed down. As in all things legal, the wording is of paramount importance. Public discussion is extremely valuable in getting it right. The GPLv3 should clearly include fixes for FSF concerns about DRM. In the end, if you, as a developer, do not like GPLv3, then simply use another license.
If the GPLv3 turns out to be a good license, the Linux kernel will eventually "fall" under it.
Jade @ <a href="http://linux.coconia.net/" title="coconia.net">http://linux.coconia.net/</a coconia.net>
Jade @ <a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/" title="domaindlx.com">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/</a domaindlx.com>
#