Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
GNU virtual private Ethernet
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4?
Posted Aug 16, 2011 6:30 UTC (Tue) by rusty (✭ supporter ✭, #26)
Agreed. And it *is* annoying that lawyers (on any side) won't publicly discuss details of how to circumvent the GPL, but I understand their reasons. I also don't know how many of these exploits were practical, rather than theoretical.
But those I know involved in the drafting, such as Harald Welte and Andrew Tridgell and various lawyers were reasonably happy with the overall result. Eventually, as a user, it's time to upgrade, and for me that time has come.
Please back up this claim.
Posted Aug 16, 2011 13:55 UTC (Tue) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
Can you please give backup for the claim that those promoting GPLv3 used sky is falling anti-GPLv2 rhetoric? I don't think that FSF did, and I know I certainly didn't. There were some in the GPLv3 process who may have done so, I suppose, but I don't think you'll find that the majority of GPLv3 supporters agree with such people.
sky is falling
I still think GPLv2 is a good license. GPLv3 is a better one.
Posted Aug 16, 2011 14:29 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds