| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ImprovementImprovementPosted Jan 31, 2006 22:17 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Marketing by darrint Parent article: GPLv3 and the kernel And, don't forget, it can lead to a better GPLv3. Torvalds' rejection surely has some legitimate grounds: maybe there is something wrong with the ideas behind the changes, maybe just the wording is not clear enough.
(Log in to post comments)
Improvement Posted Feb 2, 2006 22:19 UTC (Thu) by cyd (subscriber, #4153) [Link] Or maybe Torvalds is simply spouting rubbish, which is not unknown for him.
Improvement Posted Feb 3, 2006 0:44 UTC (Fri) by liamh (subscriber, #4872) [Link] Maybe. But after reading his comments I find myself mostly agreeing with his reasoning. And even before this, it did bother me that the GPL appeared to have made a shift from being only a copying license to also being a usage license. This is a worrysome jump. However, as almost no one has mentioned, other than (of course) LWN, this is a draft --- the v3 license doesn't exist yet. The draft was made public for precisely these kinds of discussions.
Improvement Posted Feb 9, 2006 9:56 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] GPLv3 is still a copying license, not a usage license. It allows usage restrictions to be compatible with licenses like ApacheL or CDDL from Sun. This is an optional "module" of the license. The DRM part is non-optional, because I'm quite convinced that Linus simply is wrong, and the majority is correct, that the anti-DRM statement really is already in GPLv2, though not explicitely. Linus is just telling blue-eyed rubbish. That includes himself putting the "GPLv2 only" notice into COPYING. Didn't he read the "Thou shalt not alter the COPYING file" part of the GPL? It's right below the copyright statement!
|
|
||||||||||||