×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linus Warms (Slightly) to GPL3

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the but-only-a-very-little dept.

Linux 234

lisah writes "Though Linus Torvalds isn't exactly tripping over himself to endorse the GPLv3 draft, he continues to warm up to it little by little and says the newest version is 'a hell of a lot better than the disaster that were the earlier drafts.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

GPL3 is a good thing (5, Insightful)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466793)

to whomever wishes to use it. Remember we're all free to choose our license, having another just adds another path a developer can use but not limiting what's already out there.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19466863)

Remember we're all free to choose our license...

No, we're all *unfree* to choose our license! Real freedom will be when everyone has to use only free licenses.

Please review RMS's latest encyclical on the difference between Free free and free Free.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19466921)

Further, one can not be Free free as in beer without being free Fee as in speech. Some fucks like Billy Gates want to be free as in Orange pop but settle for Free as in Pepsi. The whores.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467155)

Remember we're all free to choose our license, having another just adds another path a developer can use but not limiting what's already out there.

It limits everyone when we have multiple incompatible licenses, because we cannot use code placed under one of these licenses in a project under another license.

The GPLv3 will cause just such a conflict.

Whether this is reason enough to avoid it is another subject. But it's still true.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (3, Informative)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467237)

The FSF has always used "version 2 or later" licenses. In that case, there is no incompatibility.

It's only third party projects that changed that into version 2 only that will now be incompatible.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (5, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467417)

The incompatability stems from the incompatability between v2 and v3. v3 is not "backwards compatible"; nor is it compatible with other licenses. That's a problem. Linus has always said that v3 is an over-reaction to a relatively small problem - tivo-ization. Now that we're seeing the MS-Novell and MS-Xandros deals backfiring on all the parties involved, even without the gpl v3, I'd tend to agree.

There's nothing to stop anyone from producing hardware compatible with Tivo's code, minus the "keys".

There's nothing to stop people from switching to another distro when a particular vendor leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

Given that, and that Microsoft would be the loser in any patent war, what's the big rush? GPLv2 isn't broke, but the way some people are reacting, you'd think that Microsoft had managed to coopt all gpl v2 code.

What I'd be more concerned about is that the code written under the "covenants" with Microsoft. And with the status of the people who work on that code. Both the code and the coders will be contaminated, unable to work on related GPL products, the same as if they had partaken of the flavor-aid of Microsoft Shared Source.

Funny how this real threat - contaminated coders - is being overlooked. 5 years from now, Microsoft will be in a position to get injunctions against any distro that uses code touched by them, based on tried and tested copyright law, not patents. That's a real danger, and one that Microsoft will have no fear of retaliation from, unlike a patent war.

Remember, Microsoft has always been very skilled at getting people to look at the wrong hand, just like a magician.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467583)

The purpose of the GPLv3 is to make the language of the license more legally binding. Everything else that has been added is just icing on the cake. It is possible that some of this language could be backported into the 2.x branch, not incorporating any of this icing, but I don't think there is anyone who wants to do that. We like icing.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467943)

"more legally binding"?

Either it is, or it isn't. Its only in the SCOniverse that the GPL isn't a legally binding document.

Of course, I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments. What is this "icing" you speak of? All I see is some extra verbiage that attempts to deal with the latest round of patent fud (a fud that has already died aborning, claiming Xandros as its latest victim - no big loss there).

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468749)

Either it is, or it isn't.
That's not true. There are many ways to write a license, and even if one we have now is legally binding, that does not mean that it is the best way to word it to be absolutely certain of it's outcome in court, or to minimize time in court.

But more to the point, GPLv2 was really only written with US copyright law in mind. The language of GPLv3 was deliberately and carefully chosen to be as precise and legally binding in as many countries as possible. One example is the use of the word convey rather than distribute, and the precise definition given for the word.

In addition, one particular piece of icing, is that it is actually compatible with more open source licenses, in particular the Apache License.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (0, Troll)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467881)

GPL3 was a solution looking for a problem. Every time something new happens the roll out the GPL 3 as a solution to stop the Bill gates of the world from co-opting opensource. First its Tivoli and patents when thats not hot enough to get people on board wingo we have the Novell MS deal... RMS needs to take a bow and let someone else captain this ship maybe with all the time he can get hurd might see some progress..

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (1)

huckamania (533052) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467475)

IANAL, but I do speak english fairly well. In what convoluted universe does "version 2 or later" become "version 2 unless later".

This may seem like trolling, but I just don't like or trust RMS. I understand that the FSF has the linux communities balls in a vice, since they own most, if not all, of the tools used to build for linux. I just see this as something like a land grab. Right now they own the tools, tomorrow, they will own it all. Yep, you can copy and redistribute and improve, but they will still end up owning it cause they own the license. Which only RMS and his lackeys can change.

There's a slippery slope argument that someone else made that shows where GPLv4,5,6,etc will go as RMS roots out the non-believers. You can argue that it won't happen but you will be arguing against history and without proof.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (3, Interesting)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467797)

It wouldn't be that big a deal to fork all the gnu tools.

They're all licensed under v2 or later.

While the copyrights have been assigned to the FSF, the original authors aren't employees of the FSF, and are free to fork their own code, same as you're free to fork it.

If the kernel stays at v2, expect to see a lot of forks; RMS might want to go on and on about GNU/Linux, but the simple fact is that that GNU/HURD isn't ever going to be competition.

Also, there's nothing in v3 that prevents you from using v3 tools to compile and build a v2 kernel. Same with openoffice - the book your writing using oo isn't automatically GPL'd. The gpl isn't "that" viral, and if an attempt is ever made to do so(a GPL v4 ???), it will be the end of any use of the GPL. After all, do you really want your email to be GPL'd, and having to make a copy of the source vailable for "distribution" if you've sent a binary attachment?

IBM, Intel, and Sun all have compilers available, if push comes to shove. Come to think of it, so does Microsoft. Now THAT would be ironic.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467231)

Not if it leads to two co-existing incompatible licenses which can't share code-bases - one of the strengths of the GPLv2.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467515)

You're so right. I mean, some people like having giant bleeding legal holes in the middle of their license. No need to update a 14 year old legal document so those holes can be plugged.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (0)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467889)

There's no "hole." Its a software license, and it works fine in its problem domain - software.

Trying to extend it to hardware (tivo-ization) is what is causing the problems.

Anyone is free to use Tivo's software, strip out the DRM aspects, and market their own brand of hardware, thanks to the GPLv2.

As for the patent "issues" - they've already collapsed. Look at the latest FUD victim - Xandros. Its dropped 10 places on distrowatch in 2 weeks (2 weeks ago it was at #18, now its at #28) . There will never be a Microsoft-Linux patent war. Microsoft has too much to lose by actually naming any supposed patent, and facing patent retaliation from IBM et al.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (1)

hhr (909621) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468167)

In a large project link Linux where many developers merge code from many sources, picking your license isn't a simple decision. For exmaple, GNU contrubutes the complier and Command Line Tools. Suppose future versions of that software are release in GPL3. Could the rest of Linux resonably stay on GPL V2?

Yes, you could fork the code, but now you've doubled your maintenace and integration time, time which is probably better spent elsewhere.

You could also release a verion of Linux that's both GPLV2 and GPLV3. That would be very sad.

Re:GPL3 is a good thing (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468603)

I am a software user, not a licence user. I don;t give a flying fork about licences. I am not interested in licences. I did not even read the GPL, neither the BSD or Vista or whatever licence that comes with my software.

I want to use software. I want to make software for others. As long as it isn't public domain, a licence is a restriction to what I can do with it, otherwise why have a licence and not just put it under public domain.

lets take a point from the man himself... (5, Insightful)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466833)

"I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push the GPLv3)." No one is forcing anyone to use this. If you dont like it, chose another licensing scheme. And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (5, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467147)

It's just another license that goes further than the GPL did.

BSD License: Use our code, but keep our names in the source.
GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

It just depends on the programmer's preference. I like GPL v2 still personally. It gives companies incentives to help out, where I think v3 makes the GPL less attractive to companies which will hurt it in the long run imho. A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467267)

It is easy to see where we are going

BSD License: Use our code, but keep our names in the source.
GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.
GPL4 License: Use our code, give back your code, do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way, grow your hair long and give up showering.

Remember kiddies: Restrictions are freedom.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (3, Informative)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467383)

Hmm.... Wait... Sun is a company right?

So why does it look like they'll be going for GPLv3 instead of v2 for Solaris and Java stuff then, if that is less attractive to companies? Perhaps what you meant was; Some companies like v2 better than v3.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467471)

Because Sun owns all the code (pretty much) there, so they are not really limited by the license they choose. Everyone else is though, and so Sun does not lose much or anything at all.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (1)

tchuladdiass (174342) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467531)

Because the GPL V3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only code, such as the Linux Kernel. Sun want's to get most of the advantages of open source, however they DON'T want any unique Solaris code ending up in the Linux kernel. If the Linux kernel was GPLv2-or-later, then Sun woudn't be touching any gpl license within a 100 yards of their Solaris kernel.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467787)

Yes, because Sun would be so upset if someone used their free software in another free software operating system. Or if someone put another free operating system's code in their free operating system.

I don't think so. That really doesn't make a lot of sense. Sun presumably wants the best operating system it can get, and if that's a frankenstein-like Linux/SunOS hybrid, then that's what they want.

Nope.. Typical for slashdot... you are incorrect. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467407)

GPLv2 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses to side step the requirements.

GPLv3 = You may redistribute my code or things made out of my code so long as you extend to the recipients the same rights that you have. You may not use various forms of funny business, such as granting discriminatory patent licenses, contracting with someone else to provide a discriminatory patent license, or using DRM to prevent people from executing the rights you are required to grant them.

So, the list of specifically excluded funny business has expanded somewhat. No one should claim this as a shock because the GPLv2 includes a delightful preamble which explains the purpose of the license, and the changes in v3 are perfectly in line with that purpose. Beyond that, GPLv3 has also had a lot of linguistic overhaul so it is a much clearer document overall.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (1)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467413)

v3 makes the GPL less attractive ... A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.
But that was precisely the fear with GPLv2: that no company would touch it because that would give their competitors and advantage. But in the end, companies realized that the GPL levels the playing field, so although your competitor can use the code, you get to have his code modifications, too. And you're getting a community helping improve your code. So lots of company are now using GPLv2 code.

This will be true of GPLv3. Companies will use GPLv3 code if there is GPLv3 code they want. If GPLv3 becomes frequently used by people, then companies will use the code, and contribute to the codebase. The "danger" of competitors using your improvements has always been there: it's fundamental to the GPL. Plenty of companies can't get over this fear of being cooperative. But, some companies seem to be able to overcome the fear and do quite well using GPL software. GPLv3 will be the same thing: if there is a community of GPLv3 coders, then companies will set-up shop around them.

Doesn't help competitors a lot, either (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467553)

I mean, sure, it depends what field you're in. For example, GPL-ing Java certainly helps Sun's competitors -- I guess in theory, some wicked-cool feature of Java can now be ported to Mono.

However, take something like Drupal. Pretty much any company implementing Drupal (or another open-source CMS) on their website is going to have to write some custom modules, or at least a custom theme. If they release their modules back to the community, so what?

For example: I used to work here [pocketpcmag.com] . They are starting to use Drupal in places, and one thing I was planning to do (which never got finished) was create an easy way to take their Word documents (very well-styled, well-formatted Word documents) and convert them into HTML, for use in Drupal, via FCKEditor.

Now, if you've seen their homepage, you can see very clearly that they are in the magazine business, and the blogging/ranting business. I suppose, in theory, they have competition [pocketpcthoughts.com] , who might theoretically benefit from any changes they made. But I was told, in very simple terms, that I could GPL and release whatever the hell I wanted. It's their content that's valuable to them; they were only paying for me to develop software because there wasn't any out there that did what they wanted.

If I help their competition run their website, it really doesn't matter at all to them.

Of course, if I licensed some of their articles under Creative Commons, it would kill them.

There was no end (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468041)

"But that was precisely the fear with GPLv2: that no company would touch it because that would give their competitors and advantage. But in the end, companies realized that the GPL levels the playing field, so although your competitor can use the code, you get to have his code modifications, too. And you're getting a community helping improve your code. So lots of company are now using GPLv2 code."

Many companies still don't license their code under the current GPL so it's not as if the "fear" that companies might not use the code was entirely baseless. Part of the problem is that making your code public can provide a lot of information to your competitors that they can use against you without having to accept the GPL or contribute anything back.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19468177)

There is no danger to competitors using improvements. Unlike a brake pedal, which is something you just copy and screw together, you only gain an advantage from code that your developers know inside and out. You don't want to keep your code away from your competitors. You want to keep your developers away from your competitors.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (2, Informative)

roscivs (923777) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467429)

GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

"we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." -- GPLv2

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467513)

Quite right! And I think the licenses are better described as:

Public Domain: Do whatever you want.
BSD License: Use our code, but keep our names in the source.
GPL2 License: Use our code, but keep the code free for everyone to use or modify.
GPL3 License: Use our code, but keep the code free for everyone to use or modify. (Yes, we really meant it when we said "free." That means no patent restrictions.)
Proprietary License: Don't use our code.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467699)

GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.
GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.


It really goes more like:
GPL2 License: Use our code, but don't restrict your code or derivative program in any way.
GPL3 License: Use our code, but don't restrict your code or derivative program in any way and now we've covered your loopholes.

There are a great many things you can say about RMS, but being inconsistant is not one of them. If you read about the freedoms he wrote about when the GPLv2 was made, you'll realize that DRM, patents and tivoization are all against the spirit of the license. The GPL was made so that you could use the work in private, but so that it would never return to the public in a form less free than it was when you took it. If you subscribe to the RMS ideology, the GPLv3 is only a logical continuation of that.

Of course, many people don't. While intents may clarify how something should be read, what's not written in the license isn't in the license. So a lot of people have looked at the text of the GPLv2, and found those terms acceptable by itself. To them, maybe the GPLv3 comes as a surprise bur ir shouldn't.

A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, (...)

Tell me, if you were considering whether to license something as GPLv2 or GPLv3, which is preferable:
a) A company that takes your code can't use DRM to make people pay for your code
b) A copmany that takes your code can sell it to consumers on their Tivoized box because it needs their company's signature
I know which one I'd prefer, the one that didn't give that other company a free profit at my expense. And the GPLv3 is better at it.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (5, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467875)

I'd say it's more like:

GPL2 License: Use our code, but give back your code too.

GPL3 License: Use our code, but give back your code too. And quit trying to get cute, smartarse.

"I think v3 makes the GPL less attractive to companies"

Hardly. It makes trying to do end runs around the license less attractive. For those who intend to honor the letter and spirit of the GPL it makes no real difference.

For honest companies recieving and using GPL code it serves to protect them against further submerged litigation mines. The only ones hurt are those intent on breaking the rules.

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes"

Yes they can. The time lead and expertise is enough to compete very well in an industry with rapid product turnover. They're getting _most of their code for free_, remember? The only resources they have to invest are their edge above the baseline.

The competetive free market isnt about protecting ROI while you sit twiddling your thumbs. It's about allowing profit until cutthroat competition will catches up, thus enforcing a constant equilibrium of forced continous improvement or risking lost profits.

The GPL enforces this cycle of rapid competitive improvements and subsequent baseline merges. This enforced free market, this protection from market control and monopoly inefficiency is what enables free software, just like a free market, to compete with, and even outcompete the protected markets with a fraction of the investment and resources.

What??? (1)

Luft08091950 (1101097) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467903)

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed." Isn't being able to "use those changes" the whole point of every verison of GPL? Your statements don't make any sense to me.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467949)

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed."

That's ridiculous, sure they can. You can go on selling your product and making use of GPLed software, and so can they. What's the problem if you fix a bug in the invoice software so that you can bill them properly and they can bill you properly, doesn't it benefit the both of you?

The point of GPLv3 is not to remove incentives to contribute, but to remove the ability for companies to introduce IP into GPL software that other users cannot use as GPL software is intended (modify, redistribute, run/execute) for they will be infringing on said IP.

What exactly is the point of coding something, having a company modify it and introduce their own portions, and then they turn around and say "You can't use it anymore because our IP's in it, if you do, you're infringing... oh, and we won't tell you where it is, it's up to you to know where it is and remove it"?

Should you have to pore over the code of every app available in the next Linux distro you use just to make sure you won't get sued? Is this the point of Free software?

Do you understand at all... (4, Insightful)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468109)

"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes..."

Do you understand Open Source at all?? The WHOLE POINT IS TO LET OTHER'S USE YOUR CODE!!

Man, I'm beginning to wonder how many astro-turfers are crawling around slash-dot.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468269)

GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and do not use DRM or Patents to restrict your code or derivative program in any way.

GPL3 License: Use our code, give back your code, and make sure I can still use it on the hardware you distributed it on even if I recompile it from source myself.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (2, Insightful)

colmore (56499) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468597)

Why should my work support someone else's patents and DRM, both of which I find to be utter abberations on the face of computing. What's the point of having code be made open souce if it's going to be patented so that derivitive works can't be made -- that's the whole durn' point. If private interests want DRM and patents, then they can do their own work and keep it closed, but if they're taking code from the FSF, the GPL and millions of coders like me, then I'd prefer they keep their hands above the table, and keep that kind of anti-consumer BS out of their products.

Re:lets take a point from the man himself... (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467481)

"tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)

Well, sure, if you think there's nothing wrong with companies taking away the 4 freedoms from end users of GPL software, then there's no reason to use GPL v3.

But if that's what you think, why use GPL v2 either? Why not just use BSD?

It's not a non-issue (3, Interesting)

Luft08091950 (1101097) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467491)

"And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it."

I don't think the Novell/Microsoft deal is a non-issue. If taken in context it clearly shows one of the strategies Microsoft is taking in an effort to destroy its competition.

Microsoft floated a balloon with the SCO litigation. I have no doubt that if investigated it would come out that Microsoft encouraged SCO and helped fund the lawsuit.

Let's look at the strategy for a second.
1. Offer a license for IP that is never specified.
2. If people don't pay protection money sue. Again without specificity.
3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.

Let's look at the Microsoft Strategy now:
1. Offer a cross licensing deal for IP that is never specified.
2. If people don't pay the protection money then???
3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.

Point number three is telling. Microsoft is not interested in having the code fixed if there are legitimate claims. They want Open Source and Linux in particular to die. Once again they seek to DESTROY their competition.

These patent covenants that they are seeking is a very BIG deal.

Not a Practical Plan (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467611)

Just because Linus doesn't want to expend any effort whatsoever regarding legal issues doesn't justify his position.

In part, I agree with his decision to ignore legal issues. And I also see how it's possible to say that tivoization hasn't harmed GPL project diversity.

Linus may be okay with Tivo's case because he can undo their GPL evil and he's still a fundamental part of a whole ecosystem. IMHO that's a short-sighted though, because the GPL acts as kind of a legal conservancy, protecting ideas.

Re:Not a Practical Plan (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468113)

I wonder with all the crap that Linus has to put up with, if he had to do it over again, would he just go with the BSD license?

Best part of the article. (3, Interesting)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466851)

"if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at least see the _reason_ for GPLv3."

I wasn't even aware Sun was considering GPLv3 for OpenSolaris. So it'll be interesting to see how that pans out. Remember GPL isn't just for gnu/linux, but MANY projects on many platforms and operating systems.

Why Linux can't be easily changed to GPL3 (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468077)

Even if Linus completely loved GPL3, there are considerable barriers to changing Linux to GPL3.

Remember folks that Linux is the result of contributions by thousands of people (one of whom happens to be Linus). Those contributions have been made under GPL2. The only person that can change the licensing is the contributor. The rights to assign licensing have not been signed over to Linus so he has no authority to change the licensing on all Linux code.

Unless someone can come up with a clean way to address this issue, Linux will continue under GPL2 regardless of whether or not GPL3 is better.

Re:Why Linux can't be easily changed to GPL3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19468437)

gpl2 is completely 100% compatible with gpl3 so there is no problem. the only added verbiage on gpl3 is that they can't use the code and proprietarize it through the use of drm.

if linus torvalds decided to license new code to gpl3, it would not step on any toes of the contributors of gpl2 code, but it only stops the newly licensed portion of the code to be used in a proprietary mean. if linus distributes his new version of linux, parts of the code is still gpl2, but the new code is gpl3.

it's like porting bsd code to gpl. the original part of the code is still bsd, but the new additions are under gpl.

Re:Best part of the article. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468357)

If OpenSolaris goes GPL, that will mean nice things for ZFS [linuxinsight.com] on linux.

interconnections (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466853)

So what happens when the libc, bash, make, and all the other GNU tools go GPL3 and the kernel is still GPL2?

Re:interconnections (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466883)

Shouldn't be a problem. Keep in mind libc, bash, etc all make system calls to the kernel. The whole argument of linking basically come about lower down the chain you go. You might write programs that link to libc, but even libc is making system calls to the kernel. BTW big fan of int 0x80h :)

Re:interconnections (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466929)

Not much, probably. Glibc is under the LGPL, and the others aren't linked to the kernel, just build tools. That should be fine.

I don't know if there is code that is linked into kernel binaries that will be under the GPLv3, but I don't think there is.

Re:interconnections (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19466997)

Same thing that happened with gcc/egcs. There'll be a fork, the side supported by Linus, Red Hat, Novell and IBM will get all the activity, and the FSF side will collapse into endless Debianish squabbling.

Re:interconnections (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467007)

Not a lot. So long as GNU libc remains LGPL (v2 or v3) these tools will work on any OS whatever its licence (which is why all the tools you list are currently available for Windows, *BSD and OSX to name a few).

Re:interconnections (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467013)

GLIBC is not under GPL. Also, GPL3 software can use GPL2 software without a problem

Re:interconnections (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467319)

Is that true of software that is strictly GPL2 or just true of software that is "GPL2 or later versions of GPL"?

Re:interconnections (2, Informative)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467353)

The GPLv3 FAQ [fsf.org] :

How is GPLv3 compatible with other GNU licenses?
The various GNU licenses enjoy broad compatibility between each other. The only time you can't combine code under two of these licenses is when you want to use code that's only under an older version of a license with code that's under a newer version.

So strictly GPL2 stuff is incompatible.

Re:interconnections (1)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467401)

Also, GPL3 software can use GPL2 software without a problem

If the license says "GPL Version 2 or later, then you are correct. Some code does not have the "or later", including the Linux kernel as a whole (some pieces are also available under different licenses). The fact is that GPL3 and GPL2 are not compatible licenses. Much GPL2 code can be used with GPL3 only because it is licensed in a way that allows RMS to change the license. No GPL3 code can be inserted into GPL2 code. My opinions are very close to Mr Torvalds'. I think GPL3 is political, a knee jerk reaction to events in the market that RMS and some others are opposed to philosophically. It is a mistake.

Re:interconnections (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467485)

I think GPL3 is political, a knee jerk reaction to events in the market that RMS and some others are opposed to philosophically.

Does the pope shit in the woods?

RMS' personal philosophy of total software freedom is what drove him to creating the FSF, the GPL and GNU in the first place. It's not exactly a surprise that this reflects a little on the license text.

If Torvalds doesn't like that, he should have picked a difference license.

Re:interconnections (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468161)

"If Torvalds doesn't like that, he should have picked a difference license."

IIRC, he did at first, but was talked into using the GPL. Of course, had he picked a different license it's dubious that Linux would have gained any significant traction in the end.

For all of Linus's abilities as a technical project leader, his judgement and track record on license issues hasnt exactly been spotless.

RMS, however, has been exceedingly clear on exactly what his purpose with the FSF has been, and has been so utterly consistent in his views on freedom that I'd as soon expect the sun to rise in the west as RMS to accept proprietarization in any form.

And heck, most everyone who has read anything about the FSF and places code they're writing under the GPL knows exactly what they're doing, and place it under the GPL for exactly that reason. This is not a reaction to some events' that RMS 'and some others' are philosophically opposed to. This is the natural evolution of the GPL to cope with attempted violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.

Having knowingly placed code under the GPL myself, I'd expect nothing less than for the FSF to continue protecting everyones right to freely use, modify, run and distribute that code and the code of any derivatives.

Re:interconnections (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468155)

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call them UNIX/GNU tools. It's not as if much of this stuff was invented by RMS and GNU developers.

Re:interconnections (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468633)

Probably the same thing that's currently happening between *BSD and gcc right now.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466877)

...Linus has announced that although he's always hated marmalade in the past, he's slightly warming up to it after a recent bite of a friend's toast. He has also recently bought a green shirt despite earlier statements about green being his least favorite color, and it seems he currently prefers his eggs cooked slightly less runny than in the past.

Rumors that he is experimenting with a new brand of tube socks are as yet unconfirmed.

Joe Lieberman: Military-Industrial-CONGRESSIONAL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19466905)

Complex drone:

If you are stimulated by new ideas and if you can think for yourself rather than simply accept what Joe Liberman dishes out, I think you will find this letter of interest. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Liberman's logic, because he honestly doesn't use any logic. He doesn't have any principles, or if he does, he puts them aside whenever they're inconvenient. Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to view the realms of metagrobolism and imperialism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. Some inane, revolting paper-pushers don't have a clue. Yet the Establishment media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact.

I know more about fascism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that no matter how bad you think Liberman's epigrams are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Liberman thinks that he is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. However, he is talking out of his posterior. While his manuscripts may seem amoral, they're in agreement with his unholy analects. Common sense and scientific evidence agree: I've heard him say that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Liberman secretly trying to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding obscurantism? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer that question, but consider this: Liberman demands obeisance from his helpers. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Liberman forces them to cashier anyone who tries to shatter the adage that he should deny the obvious because "it's the right thing to do".

How dare Liberman sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of colonialism? If he continues to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of cold-blooded prophets of fanaticism, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. I must emphasize that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Liberman understands the difference between civilization and savagery. In fact, that's exactly what Liberman does as part of his quest to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on loud cannibalism.

If you were to tell Liberman that I find his traducements immature, superstitious, sappy, and more than a little feral, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. What we're involved in with him is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. In its annual report on fastidious incidents, the government concluded that I unquestionably aver that Liberman can push me only so far and no farther. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a vindictive wacko. It's a fact. Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, his mess won't go away if we simply look the other way. I believe it was Hegel who said, "It is saddening to have to tell him that he is the most subhuman mob boss witnessed by the history of mankind". My vision that some day, people everywhere will discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society is an inspiring dream. Unfortunately, reality always awakens me and reminds me that Liberman should think about how his hastily mounted campaigns lead abhorrent televangelists to wiretap all of our telephones and computers. If Liberman doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet.

Are you still with me? There is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to drive us into a state of apoplexy, at least insofar as this essay is concerned. Liberman insists that the few of us who complain regularly about his witticisms are simply spoiling the party. Sorry, Liberman, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." Please keep in mind that there are lawsuits in his future. Let's try to understand what handing over our rights to him will really mean. It certainly won't mean that we'll be able to freely do something good for others. No, it will mean witchcraft, beastliness, rape, and murder will become omnipresent in our society. It will mean a descent back into the jungle.

Apparently, one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Does Liberman contend that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong because it fits his political agenda or because he's too ignorant of the facts to know that his bons mots are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most abominable kinds of sadism you'll ever see? This can be answered most easily by stating that he thinks I'm trying to say that embracing a system of animalism will make everything right with the world. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Liberman's head. His fantasy is to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of anarchism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Liberman has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so."

I'm sure you get my point here. If Liberman ever claims that the rules don't apply to him, we must answer only one thing: "No, the reverse is true." Although the historical battle between good and evil is exemplified in the philosophical division between Platonic order and Aristotelian chaos, the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to appeal for comity between us and him, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum.

It is no news that I have a problem with Liberman's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, his compeers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of harebrained slanderers are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world before the year is over. In reality, of course, scummy misogynists are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the "poeta nascitur, non fit" that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Liberman and his avaricious legatees. We were not put here to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with Liberman's conjectures, as Liberman might claim. It is deeply unfortunate that this is a transparent attempt to throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future, since if Liberman thinks his attitudes represent progress, he should rethink his definition of progress. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "Liberman's projects violate the rational, enlightened claims of their own enunciatory modality." As backwards as his hypnopompic insights are, he thinks it would be a great idea to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.

I'm not saying this to be rash, but rather to explain that each rung on the ladder of conformism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Liberman to spoon-feed us his pabulum. That is the standard process by which crotchety lunatics gain a respectable foothold for Liberman's petty nostrums. He thinks that the laws of nature don't apply to him. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.

It may seem obvious, but Liberman says that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. His prevarications are worthy of a good flush down the toilet. This is the flaw in his threats. He doesn't understand that he says he's going to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his hirelings to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant when you least expect it. Is he out of his cheeky mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. One final point: Joe Liberman is a bad egg.

Hot air (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19466913)

This is all hot air. GPLv2 is already violated big time. Just look at mplayer's hall of shame.

Companies sell "fast video converters/players" based on code that contains ffmpeg/mplayer banners in the binary. And nobody doesn't do anything.

If FSF/OSDL just sued these companies and from the $10M reward paid the lawyer, itself and contrbuted money to the projects, it would make some sense.

As it is, GPL exists only in the dream world of the average kernel hacker.

Re:Hot air (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467023)

Only the copyright holder(s) can sue. As far as I know, the mplayer people haven't assigned copyright to the FSF, so the FSF isn't involved and couldn't sue if it wanted to.

Mind you, the FSF usually has success by sending their lawyers to talk to infringing companies. As far as I know, that has always worked so far (there was an Eben Moglen interview a while ago that talked about things like this)

Warming Slowly? (5, Funny)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466939)

You'd think he'd be warming a lot quicker with all the flame mails coming in from the GPL fanboys.

Re:Warming Slowly? (5, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467433)

Please be more specific about which version's fanboys, as I'm unsure whether i should be flaming you or not for that comment.

Linus uses Ninnle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19466975)

Were you aware of the Linux distro that Linus himself uses? It's the relatively unknown distribution called Ninnle Linux. Best distro ever!

this is the last month (4, Informative)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466983)

If anyone has comments about discussion draft 4, make them asap. Here's the page where you can see the draft and where you can add your comments:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html [fsf.org]

The plan is for the final GPLv3 to be published on June 29th, so comments should be submitted now so that there is still some time for them to be discussed and acted on.

For an explanation on the changes and the motivations of the current draft, see:

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript [fsfeurope.org]

Scientists are concerned (4, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#19466991)

They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise. This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...

Re:Scientists are concerned (1)

asserted (818761) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467075)

> They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise.

oh noes! think of the penguins! :)

Re:Scientists are concerned (-1, Flamebait)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467153)

This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...

You do realize that the biggest Gas Bag involved in the argument is RMS himself. If you are going to stop the GPL Greenhouse Gas Effect, you do need to shut-down filthy (unwashed) old styled (rhetorically unchallenged/unfettered/uninhibitted) commie sources first.

Save the planet, shut down RMS.

Re:Scientists are concerned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467355)

They are worried that Linus warming will contribute to global average temperature rise. This could be offset however, by eliminating a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Suggestions include Steve Ballmer...

You need to get laid.

Ballmer calls this "ridiculous" (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468371)

In an interview with the New York Times, Ballmer calls this "ridiculous" and says "I LOVE this environment!!! WOOOOO!!!"

mod d0wn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19466999)

FreeBSD had 7ong we need to address

Runaway Linus Warming!!! (-1, Troll)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467077)

Good Gods. Linus is warming. Quick, someone offset his carbon. Save the Linus. Why weren't we told this before? What is the Government going to do to stop this? What major economic activity do we need to sabotage to stop Linus from warming?

Re:Runaway Linus Warming!!! (5, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467185)

Rubbish, linus isn't warming. This is just part of a repeating cycle every 800 years or so, no biggie. Blame Sun.

Re:Runaway Linus Warming!!! (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467197)

How dare you minimize the plight of a warming Linus by using the word "slight". You are trying to marginalize those of us who are truly concerned by this.

Are v2 and v3 compatible? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467255)

There's going to be a lot of code that people don't want under one version of the licence or another. How does the GPL handle this? If the Linux kernel stays at GPL2, then will this mean we are unable to use GPL3 licenced code in the kernel?

Re:Are v2 and v3 compatible? (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467317)

v2 and v3 are incompatible. Code that was licensed "version 2 or later", as intended, is fine (that will simply be upgraded to "version 3 or later").

Unfortunately Linus chose not to do that, way back when, so it won't be possible to use Linux kernel code in GPLv3 code, or the other way around.

Relicensing not an issue (3, Informative)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467285)

Linus doesn't have to relicense the entire kernel to impose the new GPL-3 restrictions on the kernel.

Since it looks like GPL-2 code may be freely integrated into GPL-3 software, all Linus has to do is start adding GPL-3 code to the kernel. These small additions will have the effect of relicensing the kernel without affecting licensing of individual modules that Linus doesn't own the copyright to. Then anybody who wants to use Linux will have to stick with the GPL-3 restrictions, or remove the GPL-3 code before building or distributing.

Re:Relicensing not an issue (2, Insightful)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467573)

I'm afraid that would actually be a GPLv2 violation...

Re:Relicensing not an issue (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467617)

Which section?

Re:Relicensing not an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467789)

I think it's this one as GPLv3 anti tivoization clause adds some further restrictions over GPLv2 license.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Re:Relicensing not an issue (2, Interesting)

yorugua (697900) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467869)

Hmmm.. the man is saying:


I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.


that translates to me as "No thanks, GPLv3". Also, the man says:


All I've heard are shrill voices about "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)


which that translates to me as : "Why would I move to a license that forbids what I think it's ok to do?". if that's correct, with all that in mind, then I'd say we are ready for a GPLv2 kernel/GPLv3&v2 userspace. Is that a problem?

Sure wish Sun would go GPLv3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467335)

Solaris is a generally superb O.S.. While it certainly has its nits (especially at the user level), I see that Sun is trying to address the main issues.

If Sun were to adopt GPLv3 (and improve the management involved with trying to develop its user community), it would be an extremely serious challenge to Linux. As a Linux developer, I for one would very seriously consider switching to it. It would depend exactly on how they ran things, as Linus does a better job there, currently.

But in any case, it would give the Linux community some very serious competition. Which frankly, it could use. And in the end, customers would benefit.

Question :S (2, Interesting)

rupert0 (885882) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467411)

If the kernel developers don't move to GPLv3, are they going to stay with GPLv2 or will they eventually release a new license? LGPL (Linux GPL)?

Re:Question :S (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467781)

It might be a good thing, if Torvalds really isn't interested in the goals the FSF is pursuing. Perhaps start with the exact same text, but with another name (that would still be GPLv2 compatible so it would be a trivial change, but one that would make the situation clear).

The problem now is that this is supposed to be a FSF discussion, about how best to achieve their goals by changing their license, using the process designed for changing it. Any affected parties can comment, and they do - I love the color codes on the drafts that show all the comments people had. All FSF code and much third party code is licensed under "version 2 or later" of the GPL just to make this process possible. It's how it's supposed to go.

Torvalds wrote a great kernel, but he's not really a party in the discussion. He famously doesn't really care about FSF politics, and he chose to opt out of that whole business a long time ago by using GPLv2 only for Linux. He shouldn't really be involved in this discussion, but he's very vocal, and people listen to him because of who he is.

So yes, perhaps it would be better for both sides if Linus renamed the license he uses to Linux GPL. Less confusion.

I'm waiting for v. 4.0. Anything 3.0 sux !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19467653)


I'm waiting for v. 4.0. Anything 3.0 sux !! And isn't it sweet that Linus has left the safety of his blanket and it gravitating to v. 3.0. Peer pressure at work !!

Linus will fall into line (-1, Flamebait)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467719)

The FSF troll army are a lot bigger than he is, and they are patient. They use something metaphorically similar to water torture to persuade people of things and get what they want.

Don't want to agree with us right away? That's fine. We'll just keep chipping away over time, little by little. We also have our cultists everywhere, and we can surround you with them. They'll keep applying the pressure until you're ready to cave.

Alan Cox is Stallman's minion in the kernel team, and he's been applying the sort of incremental, gradual pressure I'm talking about on the mailing lists. I remember seeing another of the FSF's drones posting to kerneltrap at one point. They make an argument, Linus resists, so they retreat temporarily, come back later, and try again. They don't care how many times they need to do it; in the end you'll go along with what they want purely in order to get them to shut up and leave you alone.

idiot .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 6 years ago | (#19467837)

"The FSF troll army .. water torture .. chipping away .. cultists .. pressure .. cave .. minion .. drones ..

How can you post without once referencing what 'Linus' actually said, instead of a gratuitous personal and down right offencive on Alan Cox, Stallman and the FSF.

Re:Linus will fall into line

What's with this fagged up version of GPLv3? (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468021)

Why do we want a watered down, sugar-free version of GPLv3? It's either the real thing -- a license to fight back evil corporate practices, or GPLv2 -- a license that fails its purpose which is to ensure your freedom. Something in the middle will still be a failure, and will cause trouble.

So? (3, Insightful)

HotBBQ (714130) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468195)

There's so much noise about GPLv3 and other copyright issues these days. I don't want to diminish the importance of good licensing practices, but I just frickin' want my X-Fi to work, games to run, and eye candy to drool over in Linux. I don't particulary care what license the work gets done under. I suspect most people don't either; they just want their machines to work.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 6 years ago | (#19468605)

The fact that most people do not care is absolutely irrelevant. If no one had ever cared, you'd be running Windows or some thing similar.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...