Al Viro wrote:
That's GPL working *as* *intended*. No, you can't create a derivative
of GPLv2 program and prohibit the use of your modifications in other
GPLv2 programs. It's not just "Linus won't accept it upstream"; it's
"you can't even distribute such fork yourself". And it's 100% intentional -
that's what GPL is about.
I think I understand the GPL, but I'm not a lawyer :-)
As for the harm... We somehow survived years of similar "harmful" situation.
No, you can't put proprietary code in kernel and prohibit other GPLv2
projects to reuse it. Yes, it would theoretically turn some authors of
extremely valuable (but never materializing) code away. And yes, there had
been very similar whining and dire warnings. Nothing new here...
The comparison between proprietary and GPLv3 code is disconcerting and
strangely funny in this way :-/
What I think *is* new here is that some people would consider GPLv3 a
logical extension of GPLv2 (in the sense of enhancing freedom), but if
it turns out that it's so different from GPLv2 that GPLv3 code cannot be
mixed into the v2 kernel, which does stem from the same philosophy.
I suppose I'll just wait for the next draft and check again...
thanks for the feedback!
/Simon
--
phone:(+31|0)53 4810319
fax: (+31|0)53 4810333
[email protected]
http://www.ti-wmc.nl/
-
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]
