| |||||||||||||
Red Hat and the GPLRed Hat and the GPLPosted Mar 9, 2011 22:59 UTC (Wed) by pebolle (guest, #35204)In reply to: Red Hat and the GPL by corbet Parent article: Red Hat and the GPL
> Given that the context here is the kernel, you really need to be looking at GPLv2.
Though, if one is discussing a problem with GPLv2 one might look at the GPLv3 to see if, and how, the author of the GPLv2 (the FSF) tried to solve that specific problem in the GPLv3. So it could provide reasons for a certain interpretation of the GPLv2.
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 10, 2011 1:34 UTC (Thu) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link]
Mr. Corbet is spot-on here.
Linus Torvalds quite deliberately chose to go with version 2 of the GNU GPL, and not any other version. Certainly not "any later version, as published by the Free Software Foundation".
It'd be a funny old world if this matter ended up in court and the judge accepted RMS as an expert witness to expound upon the rationale behind the GNU GPL, while refusing to hear from Linus Torvalds, the leading copyright holder in the work in question.
(N.B., for all I know, Linus is 100% cool with Red Hat's move. If the TiVo lockdown didn't bother him, I don't know what would.)
|
|||||||||||||