Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Posted Jan 27, 2007 20:48 UTC (Sat) by b3timmons
In reply to: Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
Since nothing has happened since March 2006, if at all, I hope you
understand why I feel disinclined to participate in committee D.
Here's a crazy suggestion: open up the discussion. Maybe some mailing
list archives, a forum, a regularly updated blog? This stuff is
trivial; it takes all of 1/2 hour to set up. It sure would help; right
now, gplv3.fsf.org looks totally abandoned.
Not all websites hold your hand equally well, but what is so hard
about doing a google search:
Committee D mailing list site:gplv3.fsf.org
The first hit gives:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d , which you will find shows a lot more activity for Committee D than you suggested.
And why have secret police committees? I would really like to know
what the GPLv3 drafters thought of the Kernel document. Since
gplv3.fsf.org doesn't even acknowledge that the kernel guys exist,
what can I do? File a Freedom of Information Act subpoena??
Of course, there were several bits of reaction about the kernel
"secret police committees" is just silly. Whether we get a more
informed response than mine, we could indulge in a little common sense.
Clearly, since companies are involved with concerns that they may wish
to not be overly public, is it unreasonable to suppose that a
committee with a certain privacy level would elicit more candid
feedback from them? Likewise for the other groups. Of course, anyone
could always contact any member with any concerns since they are all
Answer me this: since gplv3.fsf.org does not go out of its way to
acknowledge any outside group, why should it acknowledge the kernel
guys? Could you be more specific about some unfair inconsistency?
Just imagine if the FSF wrote software using this process! The whole
gplv3.fsf.org process demonstrates the very definition of "not open."
Nonsense. The only thing not open I see is that some committees
have a certain level of privacy. What do you want? For those
committees to be totally public and then for the, say, corporate
people, to not be frank about their concerns?
Don't get me wrong; I can't wait until we have an updated GPL so the
Microsoft-Novell hole can be plugged. I just wish the current draft
were so encumbered with phantom issues. At this rate, it will take 4
more years to release and, when it finally does get shoved out the
door, it will be identical to draft 1 of almost a year ago. Not good.
"At this rate"? Are you not aware that they have long had a schedule
to keep in order to get it out in two months? Phantom issues indeed:
adj : something apparently sensed but having no physical reality;
"seemed to hear faint phantom bells"; "the amputee's
illusion of a phantom limb"
In short, I think your post is presumptuous and ill-informed, but maybe I am missing something. Apart from the MS-Novell deal that they have promised to handle, what are your issues with the second draft?
to post comments)