GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"? [LWN.net]

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:11 UTC (Wed) by russell (guest, #10458)
In reply to: GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"? by mingo
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

Is it the GPLv3 that bugging the kernel developers or is it a lack of ego stroking?

to post comments

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:38 UTC (Wed) by modernjazz (guest, #4185) [Link] (1 responses)

Ouch. Russell, those who contribute most to the kernel are well within
their rights to speak their minds about licensing issues, because these
are issues that will affect the future trajectory of their life's work.
The concerns that the kernel developers raised apply even if the kernel
itself does not migrate to GPLv3, because there is much outside the kernel
that impacts the success of the kernel.

If you want to assign motivations to bad behaviors, do keep in mind that
RMS has provided his own set of behaviors that might be causes for
concern. Think glibc, and KDE (http://lwn.net/2000/0907/bigpage.php3).

Personally, in this case I think that both parties are acting out of
genuine care for the free software ecosystem---and it does not help to
demean such idealism. Instead of trying to shut down the discussion, one
should be promoting it.

GPLv3 process "closed" or "open"?

Posted Sep 28, 2006 3:29 UTC (Thu) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link]

Sorry, that was a bit blunt.

I can't see the logic behind there argument, which is strange because they are usually quite clear and direct. That makes me think it's more than just the license, and possibly a clash of personality/goals/values. It would clear things up quite a bit if they would make known how they would like the GPL changed instead of how they don't want it changed.

I don't buy for a minute the argument that GPLv2 doesn't need changing. They accept/tolerate binary only modules which the license doesn't.