| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisRecommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisPosted Feb 11, 2007 1:34 UTC (Sun) by b3timmons (guest, #40286)In reply to: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris by mmarq Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|
||||||||||||