| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisRecommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisPosted Feb 11, 2007 0:42 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286)In reply to: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris by mmarq Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris
It seems your complaints are against not the drafting of the GPLv3 but against its aims. Because it invalitades compatibility with GPLv2.The main aim of the GPL is to protect the four software freedoms which v2 now can no longer do because of loopholes which can make v2-covered code effectively nonfree. Any license compatible with v2 would allow the covered code to be linked and distributed with v2 which would expose the covered code to the same loopholes and thus offer no better protection. Thus, by its very purpose, v3 must be incompatible with v2. In practice, this incompatibility will affect only "v2 only" projects. Moreover, v3 gains compatibility with two important v2-incompatible licenses, Eclipse and Apache. Because it specifies particular uses (DVD issue) No version of the GPL has or will ever have to even be accepted for any kinds of uses or modification of the covered code, short of distribution, so you must be referring to not a particular use but a particular form of distribution. I assume you are referring to Tivoization, which is an obvious loophole that v3 must close if the GPL is to fulfill its aim of ensuring that covered code remain free. Because its not in clear words, and i saw many confusion in various posts, and i cannot understand it clearly myself. The very same complaints have been made about v2 for over a decade. While v2 has aimed for clarity, it has also had been constrained in several other areas. One way to see this is that it has been by far the most reviewed and negotiated over software license in history. You can definitely understand v3 better by reading transcripts of speeches by RMS and Moglen and rereading the v3 draft. Any clarifications you can then make can still be considered within the next month.
(Log in to post comments)
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 0:46 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] The very same complaints have been made about v2 for over a decade. While v2 has aimed for clarity, it has also had been constrained in several other areas. Sorry, that should be "While v3 has aimed for clarity...".
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 1:02 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" this incompatibility will affect only "v2 only" projects ""
Meanning that a mix of GPLv3 plus GPLv2 code can coexist in the same project
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 1:24 UTC (Sun) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] [ "" this incompatibility will affect only "v2 only" projects ""
Meanning that a mix of GPLv3 plus GPLv2 code can coexist in the same project
Actually, I think meaning that gplv2 code that is not gplv2 only will automatically become gplv3 code when mixed in with gplv3 code... Or at least the overall program will automatically be gplv3. If I have understood at all. I may not have used the best wording here mind you.
Corrections welcome.
all the best,
drew
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 1:34 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] Oops, I should have chosen better words. The point is that very few projects are "v2 only". For the many that are v2+, compatibility is not an issue.
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 7:42 UTC (Sun) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link] Regarding this issue, it seems that the Linux kernel has a lot of v2+ code in it, perhaps as much as half.
http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-k...
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 12, 2007 1:50 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Note that, regardless of what license is specified in a particular file, if the file is a derivative work of a GPLv2 work, then it could only be distributed under GPLv2...
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 12, 2007 3:24 UTC (Mon) by notamisfit (subscriber, #40886) [Link] How much of the modern kernel could be considered a derived work ofLinus's original code?
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 12, 2007 4:36 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] he isn't the only one who doesn't want the GPLv3.
|
|
||||||||||||