On Monday 02 October 2006 04:55, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Just a thought. Suppose we forked the GPL2 license and created the Linux
> license? (Or some better name) It's kind of clear the Stallman has his
> own ajenda and that it's not compatible with the Linux model. So - lets
> fork it an start a new one.
>
> The idea of the new license is as follows. It would be backwards
> compatible with GPL2. It's would eliminate the "or later" clause because
> we have already seen the potential for abuse there. How can one agree to
> future licenses without knowing what they are going to be? The other
> feature is that the license is only modified to provide legal
> clarification or to deal with future issues that occur as a result of
> new technology or circumstances that we don't know about yet. If the
> licenses is modified then copyright holders would then have to
> explicitly declare that they accept the modifications by switching to
> the new terms.
I'd be behind such a license if it was 100% functionally equivalent to the GPL
(ie, a reword just to get around the FSF Copyright of the GPL). I'd even
license my own code under it.
Linus, you want to chime in here?
--
Patrick McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids,
we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and
listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo,
Inc, 1989
-
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]
