Re: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 23, 2006 9:44 UTC (Sat) by k8to
In reply to: Re: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
This is some weird stuff. The gist of this argument seems to be that the
requirement in the GPLv2 that you share your changes, and that you also
share the other code you link with the GPLv2 code is a neutral
requirement. Meanwhile you seem to claim that the requirement that you
allow end users to modify the code for its primary use to be a moral
and/or political requirement.
How are these two different requirements substantially different that one
is neutral and the other is strongly politicized?
Personally I believe you (and others) have simply absorbed the first
requirement, while the other is new, and so the one seems neutral because
it is not a change, while the other is not-neutral because it is a
change. That doesn't really make one political and the other not. Feel
free to point out my error.
to post comments)