FSF is creating a problem that never existed!
Posted Oct 2, 2006 20:06 UTC (Mon) by mingo
In reply to: FSF is creating a problem that never existed!
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
sorry, but the only non-personal-attack point i could make out from your post was this one:
Last I've heard, no one, least of all the FSF, pretended the FSF had the legal ability to unilaterally change the Linux kernel license.
(if you had any other arguments then please repeat them without any slant, side-kick or accusation. Thanks!)
and even this one misrepresents what i said. The kernel is under a GPLv2-only license, and as such outside of the reach of the FSF. But as an amusing sidenote, the FSF did try to claim behind the scenes that:
1) Linus did not really mean it when he has put "this license only" into the COPYING file, or
2) that main contributors have the ability to relicense the kernel to GPLv3 without the consent of all contributors, and without the consent of Linus in particular.
Most of the 350+ million lines of code codebase i referred to is currently under a "GPLv2 or later" license, and yes, i contributed to some of that codebase too, not only to the GPLv2-only kernel. Also, even as a kernel developer i do worry about the future of free software in general.
Have i understood your point correctly, that you deny that the FSF has unilateral legal power to change the contribution dynamics of that huge codebase?
(But i dont really expect any response to the essence of my posts - as i didnt get any response once i got down to the boring details of reality in other discussions. I have yet to see a single proponent of the GPLv3 who is willing to argue it through fairly and objectively, without calling names or avoiding topics once the discussion gets uncomfortable to them. I might be surprised positively and i might have to concede that i was wrong all along, but that has yet to happen.)
to post comments)