| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ImprovementImprovementPosted Feb 9, 2006 9:56 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525)In reply to: Improvement by liamh Parent article: GPLv3 and the kernel
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!
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||