FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:25 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Color me a little confused with your response. I'm not calling the kernel
guys out because they dislike GPLv3. I think they have as much right as
anyone else to have an opinion on what license best suits their code. I
think it is likely (given discussions on LKML, the views of the most
active kernel developers, and practical matters) that Linux will remain
GPLv2, and I'm perfectly okay with that. I'm not offended.

What I'm not okay with is the ad hominem attacks aimed at RMS and the
FSF, and the blatant lies about the GPL drafting process. That offends
me. If kernel people aren't going to use GPLv3, fine, but why not leave
the rest of us alone?

Posted Oct 19, 2006 0:19 UTC (Thu) by walken (subscriber, #7089) [Link]

> I am a Linux developer, and I agree with Linus' choice, then and now. If you want politics, go over to the projects which do politics. We do code.

What about the document titled 'The Dangers and Problems of the GPLv3' - was that code or politics ?

Please get off your high horse. You can't dismiss people arguments as 'doing politics' when they're only replying to your own inflamatory statements.