| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ?Posted Apr 26, 2005 14:01 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767)In reply to: Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? by xtifr Parent article: Eben Moglen's linux.conf.au keynote
Now *THAT* has to be a first. The GPL chaging to accomodate *OTHER* licenses.
Will wonders never cease? ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
Why is the GPL v3 so necessary ? Posted Apr 27, 2005 3:31 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] It isn't the first time they've made changes when the GPL's terms had unforseen/undesirable consequences. For example, the GPL v1 meant that you couldn't put a copy of a GPL program (with source) and a proprietary program onto a single CD and distribute it. The GPL was changed to allow "mere aggregation" in version 2 to allow it.
If the FSF thinks that some form of patent defense is a good thing in a license and the GPL causes problems due to its incompatibility with such terms, why do you think they wouldn't change?
|
|
||||||||||||