Linux.com

(...) the new GPL is very important and much is at stake in the revision process. The Linux kernel, the vast majority of the GNU project's development tool-chain, and more than seven of 10 programs under any free software license are subject to the terms of the the GPLv2 and, in the vast majority of cases, "any later version."

All you RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU -bashers, including some NF editors, should remember these words next time spite makes you feel like bashing those who did so much more for our community than you!

While you were yapping at them RMS and the FSF got something as vitally important as the GNU project and the GPL up and running, and with stunning success I might add. Now, they are doing a great job with the GPL3.

Values do matter. Values make the world change!

#

Although I understand your enthusiasm for the statistical facts regarding the "success" of the GPLv2, these facts are essentially irrelevant.

I do share your happiness that RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU has been numerically "successful", but more importantly the principles of "freedom", in particular "free software" (hopefully with other works to follow) have always been relevant. Even if the prevailing "popular" beliefs are to the contrary. RMS gets bashed because he is willing to step forward to defend these principles, because he understands what is at stake, while others (ahem, OSI) are content with lesser goals that don't value the "intangible" benefits of emancipating software itself!

The freedoms spelled out in "The Free Software Definition" emancipates the SOFTWARE through the user. Just as emancipating slaves means that others LOSE the FREEDOM to ENSLAVE, so it is with the FSF and the GPL.

This, in a nutshell, is the difference between "free" and "open" software. Because of the nature of "free" software (licensed under terms that will forever guarantee our rights as long as there are legal institutions that are willing to accept the validity of such a license, which, sadly, is not a sure bet) means that the collective "we" will always receive benefit. Software that follows a GPL-style freedom model ACCUMULATES knowledge and value over time and spreads it. Where as many narrowly defined OSS licenses allow/enable knowledge hoarding. Such knowledge can simply vanish when the commercial/private venture that created it goes *poof*, and in the end all such entities do.

RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU is important for the fact that they are willing to stand up for this, even if there was only one "success". Fortunately, the situation is much better than this.

#

I do share your happiness that RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU has been numerically "successful", but more importantly the principles of "freedom"

Oh, but *I* personally fully agree. But keep in mind that I was addressing the RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU -bashers for whom values, as such, have no intrinsic value whatsoever. They care for "business models", "corporate acceptance" and "non-restrictive licenses". Basically, they like something if it is effective and, I have to say, they have a point here. What they do totally miss, is that right values are the single most effective way to achieve their goals, in particular in the middle-to-long term. That was my point. "Valuess -less" concepts such as "open source" and "value - less" naming conventions such as naming the OS for the kernel are, at beast, short term fixes to immediate goals.

But then, most of them come from a kulture which associates freedom with anarchy, peace with hippes, equitable sharing with communism and principles of any kind with "zealotry"...

#

This, in a nutshell, is the difference between "free" and "open" software. Because of the nature of "free" software (licensed under terms that will forever guarantee our rights as long as there are legal institutions that are willing to accept the validity of such a license, which, sadly, is not a sure bet) means that the collective "we" will always receive benefit. Software that follows a GPL-style freedom model ACCUMULATES knowledge and value over time and spreads it. Where as many narrowly defined OSS licenses allow/enable knowledge hoarding. Such knowledge can simply vanish when the commercial/private venture that created it goes *poof*, and in the end all such entities do.

I think you are confused about the definitions of free and open. The FSD defines free software but does not say that free software must include GPL-style prohibitions on future enclosure. These prohibitions fall under the umbrella called "copyleft" of which the GPL is the best known example. Copyleft is common in the licenses that the FSF chooses but it not a requirement for software to be called free software or embraced by the FSF.

In fact, every "open source" license (with the possible exception of one or two) is also considered a free software license by the FSF and they are considered just as free. The Open Source initative embraces GPL software as well. There is really zero difference in the licenses that are included under the OSD and the FSD.

The idea that "free" is GPL/Copyleft and "open source" is BSD is a common misconception but it is incorrect nonetheless. I have heard Lawrence Lessig, who is on the board of the Free Software Foundation, make the mistake even! I hope this clear things up and that I didn't mistunderstand you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

There is really zero difference in the licenses that are included under the OSD and the FSD.

That is true only to a superficial observer. In fact the values underlying the definition of the OSD and FSD are very different. One is aimed at reassuring corporate "suits" that the software is greed-compatible while the other is designed to promote freedom.

The fact that "open source" licenses are also almost always accepted as "free" by the FSF only goes to show that the "open source" definition did not add *anything* at all substantative. It just a marketing ploy designed to strip free software from its "suits"-alienating values.

#

BMH: There is really zero difference in the licenses that are included under the OSD and the FSD.

Anon:
That is true only to a superficial observer. In fact the values underlying the definition of the OSD and FSD are very different.

I understand that the values are very different for free and open source software. This is why I was careful to make a statement about licenses and not about values. This, IMHO, is even clear in the text you have quoted.

#

I think you are confused about the definitions of free and open.

It is possible I may be confused, but I don't think so. If you look at:

<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html</a gnu.org>

You will see that a number of licenses have gone through an evolution. This evolution, in some cases has moved the license from non-free to free, but the bar for OSI is lower: there are cases where you can be excused from source code disclosure, even for derived works (depending on the license). Item 3 in the open source definition <a href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php" title="opensource.org">http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php</a opensource.org> implies that a license can be accepted by OSI that merely allows (does not require) an existing OSI-approved license to be applied to a derived work. But you can (depending on the original license of the work) shroud the derived work. The author of such a work cannot claim OSS for anything, but they can start with an OSI-approved (not all of them, I know) licensed work and distribute a binary only derived work. That is the opposite of software emancipation, that is software enslavement.

The copyleft style of the GPL is there to emancipate the software itself, it does this through the user by binding them to the license. All derived works are compelled to provide source code (if you distribute the derived work at all), unless you can put all your "stuff" into a completely self-contained external entity that can be reasonably argued as independent (perhaps as a separate shared object or executable) of the GPLed "product", which does happen, but is rarer. (NVidia and ATI drivers, ugh.)

Now, I have read a lot of the rhetoric from the OSI and ESR, and I understand where they are coming from, but the fact that over time more and more OSI-approved licenses have been climbing the "free" ladder says a lot about what "consumers" of "open source" software want which is namely protection from the possibility that their work will be ensnared into software slavery. This is a good thing, and it is also good that most OSI-approved licenses also meet this criteria. But what is frustrating is that the OSI won't even acknowledge this as important. They would rather continue to carry on with this "non-ideological" approach where they remove particular requirements for their license acceptance criteria that ensures that ugly "freedom" principle that the FSF-thumping crowd are on about.

So, in the end there are still real differences, both on an ideological and practical level: OSI *can* approve a license that does not ensure the perpetual freedom of the software; where as the FSF would never recommend such a license.

#

If you have not read what Linus has said...
Then you bettter look and see.

He said NO to GPL v3... so, that is it, he said he is not moving any OF HIS OWN CODE in the KERNEL at all... so, GPL v3 looks like it is a dead issue for the Linux kernel.

Period.

What do you think of them appples?

#

What I think of that unprocessed cider?



Jonathan Schwartz is contemplating GPL V3 for OpenSolaris.



If Linux the kernel becomes non-viable through an outdated license, we'll jump ship to another Unix kernel. (Be it kFreeBSD or OpenSolaris).



We don't necessarilly need Linux, as we use GNU. GNU is kernel agnostic.

#

One wonders if the announced Gnubuntu, that Shuttleworth agreed to do with RMS, would be a common direction (as with GPL v3, it would be able to be released under many different names and be the same dev tree.

#

Is this gnubuntu really happening?! Even the domain name is not registered yet...

I like the idea - but I wish it was done with Knoppix or Kanotix adn not with Ubuntu which I find an inferior product...

A 100% FSF approved live-CD sounds like a *fantastic* idea though!

#

Hi

See <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubuntu-libre" title="ubuntu.com">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubuntu-libre</a ubuntu.com>


    --Toni Ruottu

#

If you have not read what Linus has said...
Then you bettter look and see.

I hvae read the message your quoting (it was on NF recently) and it is hardly news. Linus removed the "or any later version" from the kernel some time ago and has been quite worried about the GPLv3 for a long time before anyone had any idea what would be in it. At this point, Linus' problems seem to be largely with the anti-DRM bits. These issues might get resolved which may change Linus' mind -- or it might not.

I don't think it really matters. The Linux kernel is very visible but it's easy to overemphasize it's importance or the importance of its license. The important thing to note is that the large majority of all free software under any license is under the GPL. It is something we have in common as a community which is why it is something we need to deal with.

What Linus did a long time ago, and then reminded us of this week, was take himself and the kernel out of the GPLv3 debate. Nothing in the kernel is really at stake. If the license is to his satisfaction, he'll probably use it. If it isn't, nothing changes. This doesn't help any of the difficult problems that we as a community need to sort out but it doesn't really make anything more difficult either.

#

Many people said Linus should accept GPLv3, but I think this is a non issue, because Linux cannot change license anymore.

Linus is not the only copyright holder for ages now, and finding all of them to ask if they agree to change the license is virtually impossible (as always, some of them vanished or may even have died). It's the same problem as POVRay-V3 for instance. The only project that managed to do so was Wine, and I highly suspect it was illegal and they didn't managed to agree with still-to-find copyright holders...

In other words, even if Linus would accept to use GPLv3, he cannot make any move anymore. That is the reason of th "or any later version" of the GPL copyright statement, which was not explicitly said in the kernel's license.

Linus refused that clause because, as many people, he didn't want to sign a blank check. That is how I interpreted his comment of "giving out private keys" (but I didn't read the original post, I may be totally off the point there).

Anyway, I don't trust neither the FSF nor anybody else, and I understand perfectly his choice: you cannot stand a phrase as "or any later version". Why not "or any other license" then? Who has the right to defines another GPL license? What if anybody else than the FSF decides to do so and get the source code for free? This clause is very dangerous indeed. He found the GPLv2 sufficient for his project and chose it, but took the risk of being unable to change the license if a later version proved better (which may, or may not be the case, he couldn't know at that time).

#

I think you are wrong. The kernel license can change over time if there is a true need.

I would expect that first Linus would create a new tree that would become available under a new license and request that all authors provide patches to remove their code if they disagree. After an acceptable waiting period the new tree would be relicensed under the new license.

#

That is a wonderfully naive theory, and also legally wrong. In order to change the license of any piece of software, you must get the explicit approval of each and every copyright holder (of their heirs if they are dead). If for some reason you cannot get explicit approval from one or more copyright holders, then legally you must refrain from changing the license, or rip out their pieces and anything that could reasonably be said to be derived from those pieces.

Your opt-out period simply would not hold legal water. Let's hypothetically assume Linus did this for a period of five years. Then he declares the kernel's license has changed. Then, twenty years later, some ex-kernel developer (or his heirs) comes out of the shadows and sues everyone who distributes the kernel for copyright infringement. Remember, with copyright, there is no need to actively enforce it in order to maintain the copyright, and the copyright lasts (in the US and many countries) for 70 years after the death of the creator. This scenario is legally possible.

As such, no one (person or corporation) would distribute software under a new license without the express, probably written, permission of each and every copyright holder or their heirs. For the Linux kernel, with hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of whom have died or disappeared over the years, this task would be nearly impossible.

#

Torvalds has been, and still is, an important contributor to the free software movement.

But there are other contributors who have contributed even more than he has. Nobody is irreplaceable. If he won't play nice with the community, there are plenty of people who could rewrite the bits of the kernel that Torvalds owns the copyright to. He does not own copyright to the whole of the kernel.

The situation is not even new. Something similar happened with the XFree86 implementation of the X Window system. That's why most distros now ship with X.Org instead of XFree86

#

One thing that made me wonder... The Linux kernel obviously has a number of contributors to it (not sure how many, I know it's a lot more than just Linus), so what about if the majority of those decide that they want to move their code to V3? Could Linus get outvoted? Could the kernel have a "dual" license with "Linus code" released under V2? Could the kernel split?

Whilst Linus is the tentative "leader" for the kernel, history shows that leaders who don't follow what the plebeian want get pushed to the wayside and let behind... (or get stabbed in the back by a bunch of their mates<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

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.

#

As I read it, the new clauses are trying to restrict the ability to use software to implement or enforce DRM. To me that's the fundamental philosophical change -- that v3 is going to restrict use instead of continuing to guarantee freedoms.

The *AA abuses of DRM technology should not require v3 to ban the use of that technology. Rather, it should continue to mandate that the implementations of that technology must be open.

Issues over the abuses of the technology should be handled in the proper venue: the courts and legislative bodies of the countries affected. Not in a licensing document.

#

As I read it, the new clauses are trying to restrict the ability to use software to implement or enforce DRM. To me that's the fundamental philosophical change -- that v3 is going to restrict use instead of continuing to guarantee freedoms.

Your assertion is partially correct, and partially incorrect. This draft of the GPLv3 does not forbid use of software to encode or decode DRM. It does not forbid use! However, it does forbid legal enforcement of DRM.

This draft of GPLv3 still allows programmers to write software that encodes or decodes DRM-wrapped file formats. However, this draft of GPLv3 legally defines any such software as not "an effective technological protection measure". These words have a specific legal meaning. In the United States the DMCA (and abroad, similar laws) legally forbids a user from circumventing an effective technological protection measure; as such, if a piece of GPLv2 software implements a DRM-wrapper, it would be illegal under the DMCA to modify the software, even though the GPLv2 otherwise intends to grant you that right. With this draft of the GPLv3, by legally defining the software as not "an effective technological protection measure" the DMCA will never be invoked, and the user is free to exercise his freedom by modifying the software.

What is the difference between any version of the GPL, and the modified BSD license, or the MIT license? Some groups claim that the latter two licenses are more free than any version of the GPL. In one sense, they are correct. Each version of the GPL has put certain restrictions on redistribution, whereas the other two licenses put virtually no restrictions on redistribution.

RMS and the FSF have always stated that users should be free to do anything with the software, anything except restrict other users' freedom to do anything with the software. That was the whole point of the restrictions in any version of the GPL, including GPLv2.

When you look at it in this light, you realize that forbidding the legal enforcement of DRM is in fact consistent with the philosophical aims of the GPLv2, because legal enforcement of DRM is nothing more than a way of restricting a user's freedom to do whatever he wants with the software. However, this draft of GPLv3 makes this explicit, because DRM-protecting laws like the DMCA have become so dangerous to the exsistence of any Free Software. In other words, copyright law has fundamentally changed with the advent of DMCA-type laws, and therefore the GPL must adapt as well if it is going to continue being effective in its mission to ensure that all users remain free to do anything with their software.

So to summarize a long explanation, you can still write software which encodes or decodes DRM-wrapped files under this draft of the GPLv3, and you can still use such software to encode or decode such files. However, you cannot sue any of your users if they choose to circumvent such DRM-wrappers, because under this draft of the GPLv3, you agree that your software does not meet the legal standard of "an effective technological protection measure".

Issues over the abuses of the technology should be handled in the proper venue: the courts and legislative bodies of the countries affected. Not in a licensing document.

Many people are taken aback by the complexity of the GPL. However, they must realize that any software license is a statement of the rights a software developer wants his software's users to have; as such, the intent of the GPL has always been to protect users' four freedoms from any tactic that may infringe those freedoms. Unfortunately, copyright (and now also patent) law has become complex and now many attacks on the user's four freedoms exist. As such, the GPL must in turn become complex to defend against all of the known attacks.

Your statement seems to say that we should deal with the issue of copyright and patent law in court and the legislature. In the long term, I agree with you and I believe so does RMS and the FSF. However, most large corporations favor exclusionary copyright and patent law and the general public does not care about the issue, therefore the copyright and patent law situation is unlikely to improve in the near future. As such, the only way to protect the users' four freedoms in the short term is to use a powerful copyleft license. The GPLv2 was once that license, although many vectors are open to attack it now. This draft of the GPLv3 looks like it will close those loopholes.

#

When you look at it in this light, you realize that forbidding the legal enforcement of DRM is in fact consistent with the philosophical aims of the GPLv2, because legal enforcement of DRM is nothing more than a way of restricting a user's freedom to do whatever he wants with the software.

The GPL has never allowed users to do whatever they want with the software, for if they wish to modify and redistribute it they have to agree to a very complicated (read: need attorneys to review) set of terms. It places considerably more restrictions than the BSD/X11 family of licenses for example.

The GPL v2 is already a rather complicated license, however, Linus was pleased with it because it provided him with a nice rights model for a collaboratively developed code base. Now Stallman, the author, intended it as something more grandiose - it was a primary enabling mechanism for his "free software" program and all that entailed. So yes, the new GPL makes sense viewed in that context of Stallman's vision. However, Linus didn't adopt the license to further Stallman's program, or if he did that was only an incidental benefit. So we now have a GPL which is substantially less pragmatic and more idealistic than v2, and moreover the DRM and patent provisions add substantial complexity which is anathema for in-house corporate lawyers who are trained to minimize their companies' exposure to risk (IP attorneys at law firms likely have the opposite reaction - they can smell billable hours on the increase). I doubt that Linux will be the only major project that has issues with the changes.

#

So, in my original post I said:

<snip>Each version of the GPL has put certain restrictions on redistribution, whereas the other two licenses [BSD and MIT] put virtually no restrictions on redistribution.

RMS and the FSF have always stated that users should be free to do anything with the software, anything except restrict other users' freedom to do anything with the software. That was the whole point of the restrictions in any version of the GPL, including GPLv2.</snip>

You quoted a different area of my post, then commented as though you were rebutting me:

The GPL has never allowed users to do whatever they want with the software, for if they wish to modify and redistribute it they have to agree to a very complicated (read: need attorneys to review) set of terms. It places considerably more restrictions than the BSD/X11 family of licenses for example.

However, you put a different spin on my words. You implied that is is a bad thing that one person cannot simply redistribute GPL-licensed material under whatever terms that person wants. Yes, the modified BSD and MIT licenses allow this and are Free Software licenses, but they don't guarantee that all users of the software are given equal freedom. To do that, a more complex license is necessary. I think I covered this well in the grandparent post, if you read it all.

In other words, your argument is that the US Constitution is no good because it is too complicated and requires a lawyer or a judge to interpret it. Also, the US Constitution does not offer me full freedom, because the 13th Amendment doesn't allow me to enslave others. Why couldn't the US Constitution just say "People are free to do what they want" and be done with it?

<snip>So we now have a GPL which is substantially less pragmatic and more idealistic than v2, and moreover the DRM and patent provisions add substantial complexity which is anathema for in-house corporate lawyers who are trained to minimize their companies' exposure to risk</snip>

As I explained in the grandparent post, this draft of the GPLv3 is no more or less idealistic than its predecessors.

When you say pragmatism, I assume you mean popularity, as in a pragmatic license is popular with corporate developers. Or in other words, a pragmatic license will allow corporations to quietly insert unfree patented methods, unfree DRM, and many other unfree concepts into our (once-upon-a-time) Free Software. Stallman has on many occasions stated how he never made the GPL to be a popular license for corporations. He made it to ensure that all users of the software had an equal level of freedom, and to this end, the proposed draft of the GPLv3 ensures this admirably given recent threats to the GPLv2.

One thing that bothers me is that you keep implying that programmers can't possibly understand the proposed license. You will probably point to Linus' "misunderstanding" of the provision regarding DRM keys as proof of this. Personally, I had no trouble interpreting all of the new provisions in a few hours of reading, even though some of them are currently poorly written and will likely be improved in subsequent drafts. It is my feeling that any developer with the patience and intelligence to understand a modern, complex piece of software (like a kernel) should be able to put his skills to work understanding basic copyright/patent law and the proposed license's language. It really isn't that hard, if you can tear yourself away from your code for a few hours. I think Linus simply didn't read the proposed license that carefully, if at all, because he has no reason to. See my next point for clarification.

I doubt that Linux will be the only major project that has issues with the changes.

Actually, this license never would have affected the Linux kernel, because no matter his personal feelings about it, Linus can never relicense the kernel under any new license. Finding and obtaining the necessary permissions from the thousands of contributors over the years, many of whom are out of contact, deceased, or just plain unknown, would be virtually impossible. So, with respect to the Linux kernel, the GPLv3 or any other license is a moot point.

Furthermore, I think few other GPLed software products will have a problem with the proposed license, as most of them already have the "or any later version" clause in their license. I think most Free Software projects that have already chosen the GPL have chosen it for the right reasons (freedom, not popularity) and will therefore understand the improvements in this draft of GPLv3.

#

It's not a vote, changing the licence requires the consent of *every* copyright holder. Unless people have assigned their copyright to someone else, that means every contributor.

If someone refuses to give their consent, then the only way to relicence is to rip out everything they contributed. Ripping out everything that Linus has written would be impossible, so he effectively has a veto on a licence change.

#

That's not true at all, it's perfectly possible to release code under multiple licenses. Each copyright holder can easily say that their part is licensed by something different.

The kernel is NOT monolithic, it is the sum of it's parts that together provide a set of functions. It's very easy to release different parts in different ways, it's just easier to provide a single "kernel thing" that represents those parts.

Also, it's naive to think that the stuff that Linus has written is not replaceable, it may not be desirable to do so but it's definitely possible. Just as in all aspects of life no man is an island and EVERYONE is replaceable AND the things they have done. Linus isn't the only bright cookie working on Linux.

#

If I contributed to the linux kernel, I can do so under any license I choose so long as it's compatable with linking to a GPL2 whole. There are portions of the kernel licensed GPL2 or later. Ripping out Linus's portions might not be impossable, but a linux compatable GPL3 fork of BSD, or maybe HURD, is likely easier. Nothing forces Linus to upgrade the license on his work, but he won't look so good if he's the major obsticle to upgrading the licence on the kernel as a whole.

#

Which GPL license should be used for the Linux kernel? It doesn't matter because the evolution of the kernel over time will tell us:

1. The present GPL v2 is a fine license for the kernel as history has proved. There is no immediate pending problem with this license.

2. If a future license becomes available that is obviously better than GPL v2 because of some unforeseen future problem and everyone agrees then the kernel will naturally move to the new license.

#

Does the phrase GPL v2.96 mean anything to anyone? According to the README file only v2.95.3 is supported. However I am sure that 2.96 and 3+ will be eventually supported, if they provide needed features. Linus didn't say he'd never ever support v3, but apparently there are some serious problems with the unofficial v2.96 release. We will just have to wait and see if these can be ironed out... Ah the deja vu<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Are you talking about GCC, the GNU C Compiler? I don't think the GPL has non-integer versions (although there was an LGPL 2.1). GCC 2.x is ancient - GCC 4 is now the standard (and supported by the kernel). But GCC has nothing to do with the GPL, of course, other than being licensed under it.

#

Indeed. I believe the OP is talking about GCC, hence confusing a compiler (!!) with a license. The whole GCC 2.96 debacle happened over 4 years ago and has nothing to do with the current topic of the GPL 3.

#

HELLO! Senses of humour, people. Note the OP's smiley.

#

This was a post for the old timers for whom "2.96" instantly brings back memories of the controversy over the unofficial version 2.96 of the gcc.

Given all the contorversy over this unofficial release of the GPLv3, "2.96" would be an appropriate version number.

People are jumping on Linus for not jumping on the GPL "v2.96" bandwagon. But for those who recall the same thing happened with gcc v2.96, and many software developers swore that they would never touch v2.96+.

v2.96 broke a lot of things, making it hard to support. This new version of the GPL will break the kernel because most of it will need relicencing, and relicencing insn't a joy for Linus the way software development is.

Personally, If Linus can out and declared his love for spending huge amounts of time with lawyers, switching the GPL versions on each contributors code to the prerelease of GPL v3, I'd ask the men in white coats to take him away and put him in a nice padded room.

Heck, according to the README file Linus still only supports gcc v2.95.3. Even though v2 is ancient. Yes the official reality and the true reality have nothing in common. But given that Linus cannot even be bothered changing on line in the README file only emphasises how he doesn't relish extra work being dumped on him. (who does?)

#

The GPL is not a constitution. It's a contagion.

RMS is, quite frankly, insane. Don't give him power, he'll only hurt you with it. It's highly disturbing to see that corporate lawyers and heads of business are giving this lunatic any attention. He's a megolamanic of the highest order.

#

Bookmark this article.

Paste the URL into the comments of any discussion on the GPL3 where common sense and rationality are sorely lacking.

#

How long should RedHat wait before they release this preview of GPL v3 under the name "GPL v2.96", and relicense all of their packages under it (making them incompatible with every other distro in existance):

[ ] Wait!? We need the latest GPL prerelease *now*!

[ ] 1-6 days.

[ ] 1-4 weeks.

[ ] 1-12 months.

[ ] Over my dead body!

#

They should adopt the new license only after applying their own, incompatible patches.

#