Re(2): GPLv3 - successful; could have been even more successful
Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 147.206.4.254]
on July 01, 2008 06:52 PM
"However, a number of them did issue a statement insisting that there was no need to revise the GPL. -- Bruce Byfield"
Seeing the weaseling of certain companies around the terms of GPLv2, as well as the increasing threats of software patents and DRM, I think the creation of a "loophole-closed" GPLv3 was a proper step.
However, I am not sure that the free/open community has enough clout to effectively combat software patents and DRM in this way. It runs the risk of dissuading companies from adopting GPL software. I guess each project needs to decide if this is a stand they want to make, and if not, the GPLv2 is still around.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re(2): GPLv3 - successful; could have been even more successful
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 147.206.4.254] on July 01, 2008 06:52 PMSeeing the weaseling of certain companies around the terms of GPLv2, as well as the increasing threats of software patents and DRM, I think the creation of a "loophole-closed" GPLv3 was a proper step.
However, I am not sure that the free/open community has enough clout to effectively combat software patents and DRM in this way. It runs the risk of dissuading companies from adopting GPL software. I guess each project needs to decide if this is a stand they want to make, and if not, the GPLv2 is still around.
#