[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: GPLv3 Position Statement
DervishD wrote:
> Probably the renaming is just common sense and will avoid ALL
> problems. People like me are concerned only because all GPLv2 that
> doesn't state otherwise will be released automagically under GPLv3 as
> soon as the latest draft is made the official version. Otherwise, I
> wouldn't give a hump about any new license until I have the time to
> read it and see if I like it.

I've already commented on the fsf site about this in the same way, and I
wasn't the first one. The only problem with this, from the FSF p.o.v. is
when this draft will not be automatically applied to all those pieces of
code licensed under "v2 or any later", the power of their political
message will be reduced to those choosing freely to convert to the new
license. I have no idea how many that would be, but those that do would
actually support their political agenda, which would be much better from
the "free" perspective.

If they choose to "upgrade" the GPL from v2 to this draft, they will
never again get support from those who feel betrayed in their trust of
the FSF in keeping the GPL to its original meaning in v2 (but not from
its original intended meaning, so probably it would have been misplaced

So who would get "hurt" by this? People who licensed their code under
the GPLv2 or later, naively thinking that the license text was the
intended goal of the license.

Still, these are interesting times in free/open source software world ;-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-28 16:53    [W:0.212 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site