| |||||||||||||
FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)Posted Oct 17, 2006 18:25 UTC (Tue) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469)Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
That reminds me a lot of Henry Clay and the Compromise of 1850, wherein a single bill was proposed that would do five different things all at once in order to ease tension between the North and South States prior to the War Between the States. Though the bill failed, each measure was then passed in seperate bills, accomplishing the exact same thing, and (many feel) postponing the war for a decade during which the North was able to outpace the South in industrialization.
I wonder what the outcome will be for the tensions between the FSF and Open Source community. Will "passing" each provision seperately abate tensions for awhile? If it does, will one side gain a large advantage over the other in the philosophical debate? Can the GPLv3 be adopted with these large changes, or will each of these changes need to be "stepped" in individually?
(Log in to post comments)
FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com) Posted Oct 18, 2006 2:37 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >large advantage over the other in the philosophical debateI submit that a healthy dose of tolerance would help. Got to disagree agreeably.
FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com) Posted Oct 18, 2006 4:58 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] So you saying that they should use the method of introducing the GPLv3 parts at a time so that the FSF can increase it's code capacity during the conflict postpontment and use it's added strength to crush all opposition?
|
|||||||||||||