| |||||||||||||
Who is doing harm here?Who is doing harm here?Posted Oct 2, 2006 6:05 UTC (Mon) by zonker (subscriber, #7867)In reply to: Who is doing harm here? by atai Parent article: Busy busy busybox
I have to disagree here. I belive Linus' point, or at least one of them, is "who wanted the GPLv3 in
(Log in to post comments)
Who is doing harm here? Posted Oct 2, 2006 7:09 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] They were involved in discussion from the moment when Linus said I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available. But it was just some internal discussion so it's Ok. While kernel guys sat out and just ignored GPLv3 - I was content. It's their right. But when they are starting to play politics - they are clearly involved and then the question arises: why have you ignored everything when you were asked but when process is nearing finish you are raising tempest ? Sorry guys - if you want to discuss do it in the proper way. If you want patch to be included in linux kernel - you sent it on LKML, not publish it on corporate website and then complain that "this @%#!@^&*#!#@ Linus just refuses to grab our wonderfull creation - and he knows where our web site it".
Who is doing harm here? Posted Oct 2, 2006 7:46 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] OK, if Linus never wants v3, then fine. Just say Linux is GPL v2 forever and be done with it.
There are people who want GPL v3. There are people who want the DRM threat addressed. There are people who want the ASP loophole closed. There are people who want better license compatibility. The kernel developers may think GPL v2 is fine for them, but they do not consider the needs of the people caring about the ASP scenario, for example.
Linus is now attacking the GPL v3 beyond what he wants to do with the kernel (staying with v2). He can just ignore the GPL v3, but the recent open letter from the kernel developers and Linus's statements make you wonder if he is trying to derail the use of GPL v3 outside his project in general. And he seems happy playing this role (due to his personal hatred toward RMS?)
Who is doing harm here? Posted Oct 2, 2006 8:34 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] you want greater license compatability by creating a license that's incompatable with all the existing GPLv2 code???!!?!?!?
you are asuuming that all the people who licensed code as GPLv2 or later are going to be willing to change that to GPLv3 or later.
if they want to stick to the GPLv2 or later then they have to live with the license compatability limitations of GPLv2
as documented elsewhere in this thread, this opens the possibility of a three way fork of a project
fork 1
with these three forks the only code 'shareing' that could be done is that fork 2 could get code from fork3. any other shareing would involve the author needing to authorize a license change.
yes fork2 can also take code from projects with more licenses, but those other projects can't take code back from the GPLv3 project without changeing the license of their own code (and if they wanted to do that they could anyway, without needing this 'compatable GPLv3 license' simply by relicensing their code
so exactly how is this 'improved license compatability' supposed to improve code shareing between projects? everything looks one-way to me.
Who is doing harm here? Posted Oct 2, 2006 20:44 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] you want greater license compatability by creating a license that's incompatable with all the existing GPLv2 code???!!?!?!? The poster was obviously referring to section 7 of the GPLv3, which makes the new GPL compatible with more licenses than the old GPL, most notably the new Apache license. Anyone who made their code "v2 only" knew that they would be incompatible with future GPL versions, just as GPLv2 was incompatible with GPLv1. I fail to see how you can criticize the FSF for something that was impossible to avoid without freezing the GPL forever at v2. And the history of free software is rife with FUD about forking that hasn't lived up to reality (even with licenses like LGPL that theoretically allow legally incompatible forks). Malign forking doesn't happen (in the FLOSS world at least) unless the project already has serious problems unrelated to licensing.
Who is doing harm here? Posted Oct 2, 2006 21:09 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] with these three forks the only code 'shareing' that could be done is that fork 2 could get code from fork3. any other shareing would involve the author needing to authorize a license change. By the way, your conclusion is false on the facts. The only code that could not be legally combined in your hypothetical example is that fork 1 ("v2 only") could not share code with fork 2 ("v3 or later"). It would be perfectly legal to combine code from fork 1 ("v2 only") and fork 3 ("v2 or later") or from fork 2 ("v3 or later") and fork 3 ("v2 or later"). There might be social obstacles, but there are no legal obstacles (no legal authorization from the authors is required). Any any hypothetical project whose developers are so divided that they undergo a triple fork has more problems than just licensing.
Who is doing harm here? Posted Oct 2, 2006 11:36 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >say Linux is GPL v2 forever and be done with it.
If "done" were possible.
Who is doing harm here? Posted Oct 2, 2006 19:57 UTC (Mon) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] > OK, if Linus never wants v3, then fine. Just say Linux is GPL v2> forever and be done with it.
Friday, September 8, 2000 was six years ago:
That predates the entire GPLv3 debate by a lot, and it isn't Linus who's
|
|||||||||||||