Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 25, 2006 3:45 UTC (Mon) by jstAusr (guest, #27224)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by BrucePerens
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

> I think his failure this time is mainly a PR failure.
> He's not involved the kernel developers in solving the problem.

I really don't understand what else he could do. The kernel developers aren't interested in any changes. What do you think he could have done differently? It is rather difficult to involve those that don't want to be involved.

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 30, 2006 12:44 UTC (Sat) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]

> I really don't understand what else he could do. The kernel developers
> aren't interested in any changes.
> What do you think he could have done differently? It is rather
> difficult to involve those that don't want to be involved.

For Linus Torvalds, this is true - he absolutely said "not" to GPLv3.

However, a set of kernel developers, in their whitepaper about this
(http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/) are pointing out significant issues in
GPLv3, and he should consider those issues and try to solve them.

For the DRM thing, that clause would stop a Linux kernel signed by any
distro. When you run a binary kernel from a distro, requiring a signature
from the kernel builder (think to Debian) would effectively stop
insertion of non-authorized modules (think to Adore or such rootkits);
but GPLv3 would disallow this (I think). Also, code for this has been
written IIRC by Fedora, so this is not "theoretical".

Developers also think the distinction between such cases and DRM abuses
is impossible to draw in a license, because it is connected to political
reasons. RMS should prove them wrong on this point.