Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 26, 2006 4:20 UTC (Tue) by drag
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
There are FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels, which can be forked to GPL. Debian has GNU systems using a BSD kernel. Also Hurd was also functional as a kernel until they decided go L4 on it.
Not that I'd actually want to run one of those kernels.. Linux is by far the most sophisticated and best performing kernel aviable. It's just the best.
RMS is fine. You can't seem to trust him.. but as long as your goals are the same as his then everything is cherry.
What is going on here is just different points of view.
The Kernel developers like the GPL because it compels third parties to contribute code back into the Linux kernel. They don't seem care about the freedom so much or helping to ensure the freedom of end users of products using their software.
They are dedicated to making the kernel as usefull and most effective kernel it can be.
The political nature of RMS's message of his brand of 'Freedom' is counteractive to that goal, going with the current GPLv3 draft would sacrifice some commercial interests of Linux which would benifit Linux developers with code, testing, support, etc etc.
Personally I am a end user and obviously for my own self interest I would like the kernel to go GPLv3 because it would help me avoid devices that claim they 'run linux', but are not hackable. It would help to ensure that companies won't try to sneak restrictions in on me. Anything to make DRM less attractive for hardware developers is a good thing to me.
However I doubt that that realy is the highest priority for the kernel devs. I don't blame them.
to post comments)