Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Posted Feb 13, 2007 21:15 UTC (Tue) by RareCactus
In reply to: Possible routes to kernel on GPLv3
Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
While it may or may not be possible theoretically to relicense the Linux kernel, what a lot of people have missed is that the developers would have to *want* to relicense and given that desire, they would have to feel like gpl3 was the one to go for. Neither of these are at all a given.
RMS and his followers haven't "missed" that, they've willfully ignored it.
Over and over again, RMS has attempted to claim Linux as his own. Do you remember when he tried to tell everyone to call it "GNU/Linux," because most distributions include some GNU code here and there? Of course, to anyone who knows anything, this is completely unreasonable... you might as well call it BSD/Xorg/MIT/GNU/BellLabs/Linux, because code and ideas came from all of those sources.
This is just another power grab. Never mind that RMS had nothing to do with creating Linux-- the kernel developers are "being unreasonable" because they are using their own minds to decide what license is best for their code.
Maybe at one point RMS was a programmer. But now, he is a politician and that is what politicians do-- try to take power. You can see it in the way he pushes copyright assignation. You can see it in the way he tries to take credit for other people's work. You can see it in the way he's trying to bully the kernel devs now.
to post comments)