| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
news:news:Posted Apr 24, 2003 17:25 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: news: by coriordan Parent article: Linus on digital rights management if GPL v3 attempts to regulate this then there will be interesting fireworks. Linus has the kernel licensed under the GPLv2, NOT GPLv2 or later and so we could get into a mess where a kernel hacker submits something under GPLv3 and Linus rejects it unless they change it to GPLv2 (and if GPLv2 and GPLv3 code is combined which version is the result under)
(Log in to post comments)
news: Posted Apr 24, 2003 18:18 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] This isn't that big a deal. Linux is only one project, if Linus doesn't like v3 he can use v2. Another option is that he can dual license the kernel under both versions, he already accepts dual licensed code so long as one of the licenses is the GPLv2.This dual licensing situation wouldn't sovle the signed-kernels-only hardware problem but it would allow kernel hackers to use v3 if they want. Ignoring Linux, I'd like to see v3 address this issue becuase I release software under the GPL, and I wouldn't like it to be used in a way that doesn't give users Freedom. RMS's comments on this issue would of course be interesting but this situation really isn't that important. The problem of cripling hardware to remove users freedom has already been thought of, and Linus's thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. Ciaran O'Riordan
|
|
||||||||||||