One Problem
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth May 20, 2007 10:42 AM EDT |
Probably not a big problem, but it needs pointing out that if none of the packages is licensed under GPL3 then its a big "So What?" as GPL3 nor any of its provisions would kick in. That being said its a fairly good guess that there are packages in there labeled "GPL2 or later" which brings GPL3 into play. |
| Abe May 20, 2007 11:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:but it needs pointing out that if none of the packages is licensed under GPL3 then its a big "So What?" as GPL3 nor any of its provisions would kick in. Moglen is not naive, I am sure he knows that. But his point is to all the software developers in the FOSS community to adopt GPL3 in their future releases of their software so this clause would kick in. Of course Novell might not release the GPL3 version, but how long are they willing to wait without taking over the maintenance of the last GPL2 release? Don't you think? |
| hkwint May 20, 2007 12:50 PM EDT |
As Abe just said, what will happen if Moglen is right? If it's sure Moglen is right, Linux-users (people and business) will be asking for a GPLv3 Linux-kernel and version of OpenOffice. They'll do so because if the new versions of those two are GPLv3, and Novell distributes them in SUSE, which they will have two if development of OOo and the Linux kernel under GPLv2 ends, then Linus Thorvalds e.a. and the OOo people will probably give in to the people and business users asking for GPLv3 software. There's another small problem too: Are those SUSE-coupons issued by Mircosoft valid for all future versions of SUSE? I've never saw such a coupon, so it's a valid question. Probably it _is_ valid for any future version of SUSE, since if it would be valid for the current version of SLES only, it would implicitly have an expiration date: the last day the current version of SLES is distributed. This probably won't be the case since Eben Moglen probably also thought of this. At least, I assume. |
| azerthoth May 20, 2007 3:03 PM EDT |
I wasn't disagreeing with Prof. Moglen, just pointing out something that wasn't said. As to GPL3 kernel, Linus has explained that one of the reasons that the kernel cant (or at least a huge headache) go to GPL3 is that it would take 100% agreement from all developers. If trying to get that herd of cats to agree to that isn't hard enough, there is also the problem that some of the developers are currently dead. |
| dcparris May 20, 2007 9:23 PM EDT |
If they're only currently dead, do you expect their condition might change? |
| tracyanne May 20, 2007 9:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:If they're only currently dead, do you expect their condition might change? I was going to recommend a midnight ceremony involving lots of chickens blood. |
| dcparris May 20, 2007 9:34 PM EDT |
:-) |
| Sander_Marechal May 20, 2007 10:21 PM EDT |
We could get Miracle Max to see if they're just mostly dead :-) |
| hkwint May 20, 2007 11:47 PM EDT |
Hmm, if they're dead, they won't disagree with the kernel changing to GPLv3, huh? |
| jezuch May 21, 2007 2:07 AM EDT |
They won't agree either... |
| bigg May 21, 2007 6:09 AM EDT |
> there is also the problem that some of the developers are currently dead That wouldn't get in the way of Microsoft, if they were the ones wanting to change the license. |
| azerthoth May 21, 2007 6:10 AM EDT |
Rev, I do expect their condition to improve. The ways and means of that are more your department though. |
| dcparris May 21, 2007 7:53 AM EDT |
:-D Well, I think we need to remember at this point that MS *did* innovate something - a method to appeal to the justice system by having dead people write letters. So I'm guessing it's possible for the kernel developers to implement a method to get approval for a license migration from dead developers without infringing on MS' IP. ;-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!