| |||||||||||||
LicenseLicensePosted Jul 28, 2011 21:18 UTC (Thu) by runciter (guest, #75370)Parent article: Signs of life from GNU Hurd
An important point that has not been mentioned so far is that Hurd is under GPL3+, whereas Linux is stuck with GPL2. While it doesn't make a difference to users, that point alone can be a significant advantage to potential contributors.
(Log in to post comments)
License Posted Jul 28, 2011 22:02 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I think most people would agree with you on that statement.
I think that you would find many people disagreeing on which of the two has the advantage however.
License Posted Jul 31, 2011 5:29 UTC (Sun) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]
I doubt that there are many who care whether a project they contribute to (or even less, that they use) is GPL2 or GPL3.
I expect that most people contribute to a project because they find it enjoyable to contribute to that specific project, and their interest in the license is most likely limited to checking that it is a free software and/or open source license.
License Posted Aug 1, 2011 13:08 UTC (Mon) by runciter (guest, #75370) [Link]
I, for one, would never make a significant contribution to a non-copyleft project. And while I don't mind GPL2 that much, when a developer contributes to Linux, he has to bear in mind that he is also contributing to TiVo and other companies like TiVo, which will use his code against the spirit of the license under which it was released by exploiting loopholes in the license. Everything else being equal, I would definitely choose to contribute to a GPL3+ project over a GPL2 project.
|
|||||||||||||