Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 22, 2006 20:08 UTC (Fri) by Tester
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
I dont know if I have missed something, but can't the DRM clause just be ignored by adding an additional permission? Like "Linux license is gplv3 + you are allowed to distribute without giving crypto keys and to implement DMCA technological protection measures". Would that solve the problem for you?
And isnt destroying software patent portfolios just what we are trying to achieve. Since software patents are considered by most Free Software developers to be BAD BAD BAD. And even if the kernel stays under the GPLv2, the FSF's code will be under gplv3, so we are pretty much guaranteed that any Linux distributor except for tiny embedded systems will have to do accept the license. Except if you plan on forking gcc, glibc, binutils, etc.
But I agree that the additionnal restrictions clause is nasty for license proliferation..
to post comments)