| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisRecommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisPosted Feb 10, 2007 23:54 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris by mmarq Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris
Because it invalitades compatibility with GPLv2. That's the whole point, you know. Fix the license to deflect new attacks on freedom. It was known that GPLv3 will not be compatible with GPLv2 many years ago - when the GPLv2 was written. Because it specifies particular uses (DVD issue) Have you read the GPLv3 draft? Because its not in clear words, and i saw many confusion in various posts, and i cannot understand it clearly myself. Again: have you read the GPLv3 draft? I too saw a lot of strange posts - mostly from the people who never bothered to read the latest draft (or in most cases never read any draft). Sure - it's impossible to understand GPLv3 unless you've read it at least once. That's not GPLv3 fault...
(Log in to post comments)
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 11, 2007 0:57 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Yes i have, it was an old version perhaps, full of strickles on the text. Im not updated and is not my business to be, which dosent invalidated my opinions. Meanwhile here is more confusion:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006072714003881...
A MS specific clause perhaps...
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061116103031303
|
|
||||||||||||