On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That's my standpoint, at least. Always has been. It's
the reason I chose the GPL in the first place (and
it's the exact same reason that I wrote the original
Linux copyright license). I do _software_, and I
license _software_.
=====
(Yahoo email isn't a very frendly email interface,
sorry) ;/
Are you not worried that with the GPLv2 also has the
clause where if patents not themselves open for use
then the whole work becomes non-distributable anymore?
Ie, nobody could work on the Linux kernel anymore. I
mean, I don't think the FSF would screw people over,
if they did nobody would use the GPL license and that
would hurt them. I really don't understand why it has
to be a 'us vs them' mentality here. We're all trying
to create Free/Open software.
I'm more concerned that with GPLv2 license as it is,
may put the kernel in danger of itself being
non-distributable in any sort of way (patents, or
other ways?).
I don't personally care if the kernel is v2 or v3, my
concern is the kernel source itself is safe from evil
interests out there.
Shawn.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
