Stallman, Torvalds, and Novell comment on GPLv3 (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

Linux.com has published some comments on the third draft of the GPLv3. "When the second draft of GPLv3 was released, Linus Torvalds was one of its most outspoken critics. Although he stresses that he is giving only a preliminary opinion on GPLv3, and may change his mind as he looks at it more closely, his first response to the third draft is to give it qualified approval. "Is it better?" Torvalds asks rhetorically. "Hell yeah. But it's been limited in ways that at least make it much saner. I'll have to think about it. The language seems cleaner and better than GPLv2 in many places, and many of my 'that is obviously totally idiotic crap' areas have either been improved or seem to have been removed entirely.""

(Log in to post comments)

Stallman, Torvalds, and Novell comment on GPLv3 (Linux.com)

Posted Mar 30, 2007 19:11 UTC (Fri) by rknasc (guest, #11401) [Link]

Perhaps the whole Novell agreement was a ruse to tick Linus off so much that he would sign on to a modified version of GPL3.

Stallman, Torvalds, and Novell comment on GPLv3 (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 2, 2007 19:19 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

Wouldn't it be more effective if GPLv3 had been protected against the "covenants not to sue" before the Novell-Microsoft deal? This way, FSF would have demonstrated that GPLv3 proactively addresses that loophole, which would be more convincing for Linus. I mean, if hundreds of millions changed hands, how hard would it be to arrange somebody to send FSF an amendment for GPLv3 that would likely be accepted?

Stallman, Torvalds, and Novell comment on GPLv3 (Linux.com)

Posted Mar 31, 2007 14:19 UTC (Sat) by mbottrell (guest, #43008) [Link]

Lowry needs to understand the GPLv3 a little better.

Novell can't have it both ways.... the 'agreement' they have fostered with Microsoft WILL exclude SLES/SLED and OpenSuSE using GPLv3 code if the agreement remains as such.

One can't make a pact with the Devil and still expect to reap the rewards from heaven.

I'm still yet to see the bluster from Microsoft that shows 'just what IP/patents' Linux is apparently encroaching on.

Until firm proof with documents is produced, it lies still in the FUD camp along with SCO's very unsuccessful claims.

Stallman, Torvalds, and Novell comment on GPLv3 (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 2, 2007 13:17 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

I haven't read it, but I get the impression that the grandfather clause would be there to protect Novell. If so then Novell is not in violation of the GPL3(draft3) with that clause included.

From:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq

>> This would have the side effect of allowing Novell to distribute software under GPLv3. We are still evaluating the risks and costs associated with this text, and look forward to additional feedback.

Stallman, Torvalds, and Novell comment on GPLv3 (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 5, 2007 22:35 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

Define `Novell'. I dare ya.

Given the likelihood of mergers, buy-outs, spin-offs, and Finagle-only-knows what devices Wall Street has yet to invent, it seems to me any attempt to grandfather in a particular company is bound to come to grief somewhere down the line.

Stallman, Torvalds, and Novell comment on GPLv3 (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 11, 2007 20:58 UTC (Thu) by tonyathomas (guest, #48336) [Link]

What is GPLv3 ?

<a rel="follow" href="http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq">http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq