Joshua David Williams wrote:
I've been keeping tabs on the GPLv3 dispute for quite some time. It seems to
me that the best solution would be for us to write our own open source
license - one that would be written specifically to uphold the ten rights in
the open source definition.
Your solution for license fragmentation is more license fragmentation? GPLv2 is
a damn good license. If we're going to undertake the arduous task of
relicensing the kernel, it had better be worth the payoff. GPLv3 is being
considered because:
1) A lot of the GPLv2 code in the kernel was explicitly authorized by the
contributor to be distributed under future versions of the GPL published by the
FSF. This means we only have to go through the headache of getting
authorization to relicense for a much smaller code base than the whole kernel.
2) The influence of the FSF and ubiquity of GNU tools means that a large chunk
of code is going to be released under GPLv3. This cannot be said for your license.
I'm not a lawyer
GPLv3 was written by a whole bunch of lawyers, all of them trained and
experienced to consider the extended ramifications of the precise wording of the
license in numerous jurisdictions worldwide. The current draft is already a
compromise between GPLv2 and earlier GPLv3 drafts. It's quite possible that the
kernel will never relicense, and that's okay, because we already have a good
license, the GPLv2, which was also written by a lawyer.
-- Chris
-
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]
