Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 8:05 UTC (Sat) by beoba (guest, #16942)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by tglx
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Nobody forces you to use code which you don't like, either. If you don't like software that's licensed with GPLv3, then don't pretend that you're entitled to a free ride.

Usage of GPLv3 is a decision that's ultimately left to the creator of the software, not the user. The user is left with the decision of which software to use.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 19:01 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, I think that's what the kernel folks just said - it's their choice and they choose GPLv2...

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 24, 2006 3:16 UTC (Sun) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] (1 responses)

So why are they blaming the FSF when it is the kernel hackers that are making the choice to allow the kernel to be used in non-free ways? It is their choice, it is their responsibility. The FSF hasn't changed their goals they are just responding to new circumstances and doing what they have promised their users since the beginning. I have no dought that the device manufacturers and media companies will take the kernel hackers response as a green light to use more spyware and lock down their devices even more.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 15:02 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

I don't think they're "blaming the FSF" for anything except potentially fragmenting the development community. THey're just saying that GPLv3 draft 2 is not in the same spirit that they licensed their code under and they do not intend to change to use the new version if it contains the indicated additional conditions.

I do agree that the FSF is pursuing its goals as it did from the beginning, and that like every politically-oriented organization, it is interpreting success as a mandate to expand its reach. Many organizations find out that overreaching erodes their support base, eventually to the point that their community splinters and their group becomes marginal.