Section 5.2 and 5.3
Posted Sep 22, 2006 18:25 UTC (Fri) by atai
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
The DRM part is an existing controversy and this article provides little new.
For section 5.2, the additional requirements allowed, excluding the ASP clause, seem reasonable and are common in some other Free Software licenses, so their combinations should not cause the type of fragmentation as stated in the article. After all, when you combine existing free software under different licenses, you need to go through the process anyway. The ASP clause clearly should not be used in the kernel but may be useful for people writing content management systems.
Section 5.3, it may seem a good idea to allow people to assert patent claims against these who assert patent claims against them... (Current GPL 3 draft does not seem to allow that possibility)
to post comments)