GPLv2 or, at your option, any later version
Posted Oct 3, 2006 8:34 UTC (Tue) by man_ls
In reply to: GPLv2 or, at your option, any later version
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
Do you now see why such an arbitrary "rejection of a position" combined with "unparalleled legal power" scares most of the kernel developers?
I would not say the rejection was arbitrary. It has been justified repeatedly
and since a long time ago
You said above you did not agree with the GNU manifesto but found GPLv2 reasonable; that anti-DRM clauses were out of scope. I think that is just because you have seen one in action (GPLv2) but not the other (GPLv3). Your distrust is justified but, as gmaxwell said above, inaction against a visible threat would not be welcome by most people. Leaving these issues to "markets" would be like trusting Microsoft to open up their protocols.
If Linus did that, and if it mattered to enough people, they'd walk away and start another kernel tree.
I gather from LWN (not an expert by any means) that many people keep parallel trees; e.g. micro-kernel advocates, alternate security framework proponents, and lately yourself. Has it changed Linus' attitude towards these issues?
On the other hand, many people have proposed alternative licenses, even copyleft licenses. You are free to relicense all of your extant code if you want; not in the kernel, but the kernel is not an option for GPLv3 either.
to post comments)